National Environmental Policy Act Scoping Report Honolulu High by osq14347

VIEWS: 38 PAGES: 353

									             National Environmental Policy Act
                               Scoping Report
Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project




                                        May 30, 2007

                                             Prepared for:
                               City and County of Honolulu


                                            Prepared by:
                                     Parsons Brinckerhoff
                                                  Table of Contents
Section                                                                                                                                                 Page

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 1-1

CHAPTER 2 OUTREACH EFFORTS ................................................................................... 2-1

CHAPTER 3 NOTICE OF INTENT ....................................................................................... 3-1
        Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for High-Capacity Transit Improvements in the
        Leeward Corridor of Honolulu, Hawai‘i ........................................................................................................3-1
        Supplementary Information ............................................................................................................................3-2

CHAPTER 4 AGENCY SCOPING ......................................................................................... 4-1
   Notification of Agency Scoping Meeting...........................................................................................................4-1
   Summary of Agency Scoping Meeting..............................................................................................................4-1
   Agency Scoping Questions and Responses .......................................................................................................4-1

CHAPTER 5 PUBLIC SCOPING............................................................................................ 5-1
   Clarification of the Scoping Process .................................................................................................................5-1
   Summary of Public Comments..........................................................................................................................5-1
   Substantive Comments on Purpose and Need, Alternatives, and Scope of Analysis....................................5-2
      Comments Related to Purpose and Need ........................................................................................................5-2
      Comments Related to Alternatives..................................................................................................................5-2
      Comments Related to Scope of Analysis ........................................................................................................5-4

CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................. 6-1

APPENDIX A SCOPING COMMENTS................................................................................ A-1
   Appendix A-1: Agency NEPA Scoping Comments........................................................................................A-3
   Appendix A-2: Organization NEPA Scoping Comments............................................................................A-31
   Appendix A-3: Business NEPA Scoping Comments..................................................................................A-149
   Appendix A-4: Public NEPA Scoping Comments .....................................................................................A-163


List of Tables
Table                                                                                                                                                   Page
Table 4-1. Agencies Invited to be Participating Agencies and their Status................................ 4-2
Table 4-2. Agency Scoping Meeting Additional Invited Participants........................................ 4-3




NEPA Scoping Report                                                 Table of Contents                                                                   Page i
Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project
Chapter 1                                                                  Introduction
         The City and County of Honolulu Department of Transportation Services (DTS), in
         cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration
         (FTA), will be preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate
         alternatives that would provide high-capacity transit service on O‘ahu. The primary
         project study area is the travel corridor between Kapolei and the University of Hawai‘i at
         Mānoa (UH Mānoa).
         The notice of intent to prepare the EIS appeared in the Federal Register on March 15,
         2007. The EIS will be prepared to satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental
         Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and its implementing regulations and Chapter 343 of the
         Hawai‘i Revised Statutes. The FTA and DTS requested public and interagency input on
         the purpose of and needs to be addressed by the project, the alternatives to be considered,
         and the scope of the NEPA EIS for the project, including the environmental and
         community impacts to be evaluated. The scoping comment period under NEPA officially
         began on the date of the Federal Register publication and closed on April 12, 2007.
         Scoping activities related to the Hawai‘i Revised Statutes Chapter 343 process were
         completed in December 2005 and January 2006. Those activities are summarized in the
         Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Scoping Report dated April 6, 2006.
         Comments and issues raised during the Chapter 343 scoping process that have not
         already been addressed during the planning Alternatives Analysis for the project will be
         addressed in the Environmental Impact Statement, in addition to issues noted during the
         NEPA scoping process.
         DTS completed a planning Alternatives Analysis in October 2006 that evaluated the four
         following alternatives to provide high-capacity transit service in the travel corridor
         between Kapolei and UH Mānoa:
             •    No Build
             •    Transportation System Management
             •    Express Buses operating in Managed Lanes
             •    Fixed Guideway Transit System
         After review of the Alternatives Analysis Report and consideration of public comments,
         the City and County of Honolulu Council selected a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA)
         on December 22, 2006. The decision was signed into law by the Mayor on January 6,
         2007, becoming Ordinance 07-001, selected a fixed guideway transit system extending
         from Kapolei to UH Mānoa with a connection to Waikīkī. The ordinance authorizes the
         City to proceed to planning and engineering of a fixed guideway project within these
         limits and following the alignment defined in the ordinance. Also, the First Project was
         directed to be fiscally constrained to anticipated funding sources. City Council
         Resolution 07-039 defined the First Project as extending from East Kapolei to Ala Moana
         Center via Salt Lake Boulevard.



NEPA Scoping Report                               Chapter 1                                  Page 1-1
Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project
           All interested individuals and organizations, and federal, state, and local agencies were
           invited to comment on the purpose of and needs to be addressed by the project; the
           alternatives, including the modes and technologies to be evaluated and the alignments
           and termination points to be considered; and the environmental, social, and economic
           impacts to be analyzed. An opportunity to express a preference for a particular
           alternative will be available after the release of the draft EIS, which compares various
           alternatives.
           Public scoping meetings were announced in the notice of intent and were held at two
           locations within the study corridor. A third public meeting to provide information and
           collect comments was added at the public’s request. The meetings were conducted in an
           open-house format that presented the purpose of and needs for the project, proposed
           project alternatives, and the scope of analysis to be included in the EIS. The meetings
           allowed members of the public to ask questions of project staff and provided an
           opportunity for the public to present either written testimony or oral testimony, recorded
           by court reporters.
           The first scoping meeting was held at Kapolei Hale at 1000 Uluohia Street, Honolulu, HI
           96707 on March 28, 2007, from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. and was attended by
           approximately 40 people. The second meeting was held at McKinley High School at
           1039 South King Street, Honolulu, HI 96814 on March 29, 2007, from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00
           p.m. and was attended by approximately 75 people. The third meeting was held at Salt
           Lake Elementary School at 1131 Ala Liliko‘i Street, Honolulu, HI 96818 on April 3,
           2007, from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. and was attended by approximately 25 people.
           The public scoping meetings were supplemented with an agency scoping meeting
           targeted to those Federal, State, and County agencies potentially interested in the project.
           The agency scoping meeting was held at Honolulu Hale, Mission Memorial Auditorium
           at 550 South King Street, Honolulu, HI 96813 on March 28, 2007, from 10:00 a.m. to
           12:00 p.m. and was attended by approximately 20 individuals from agencies and utility
           companies.
           Following closure of the public scoping process, continued public outreach activities will
           include meetings with interested parties or groups. The project website,
           www.honolulutransit.org, will be periodically updated to reflect the project’s current
           status. Additional opportunities for public participation will be announced through
           mailings, notices, advertisements, and press releases. Anyone may be placed on the
           project mailing list by registering on the website at www.honolulutransit.org or by calling
           (808) 566-2299.




Page 1-2                                         Chapter 1                               NEPA Scoping Report
                                                                Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project
Chapter 2                                                       Outreach Efforts
         The project scoping meetings were publicized through newsletter mailings, website and
         phone-line information, newspaper advertisements, and news service coverage. No
         requests were received for materials or presentations in any language except English.
         Newsletters were mailed to approximately 15,000 addresses.
         Legal advertisements were placed in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin on March 16, 21, 22, and
         23, 2007.
         The Scoping Meetings received substantial media notice and coverage, including stories
         on local television news and in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin.
         The project website was updated on March 15, 2007, with the scoping information
         package and meeting notices. The website also provided a form to submit scoping
         comments.




NEPA Scoping Report                               Chapter 2                                Page 2-1
Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project
Chapter 3                                                            Notice of Intent
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Transit Administration
Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for High-Capacity Transit
Improvements in the Leeward Corridor of Honolulu, Hawai‘i
         AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration, DOT.
         ACTION: Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
         SUMMARY: The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the City and County of
         Honolulu, Department of Transportation Services (DTS) intend to prepare an EIS on a
         proposal by the City and County of Honolulu to implement a fixed-guideway transit
         system in the corridor between Kapolei and the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa with a
         branch to Waikīkī. Alternatives proposed to be considered in the draft EIS include No
         Build and two Fixed Guideway Transit alternatives.
         The EIS will be prepared to satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental
         Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and its implementing regulations. The FTA and DTS request
         public and interagency input on the purpose and need to be addressed by the project, the
         alternatives to be considered in the EIS, and the environmental and community impacts
         to be evaluated.
         DATES: Scoping Comments Due Date: Written comments on the scope of the NEPA
         review, including the project’s purpose and need, the alternatives to be considered, and
         the related impacts to be assessed, should be sent to DTS by April 12, 2007. See
         ADDRESSES below.
         Scoping Meetings: Meetings to accept comments on the scope of the EIS will be held on
         March 28 and 29, 2007 at the locations given in ADDRESSES below. On March 28,
         2007, the public scoping meeting will begin at 6:30 p.m. and continue until 9:00 p.m. or
         until all who wish to provide oral comments have been given the opportunity. The
         meeting on March 29, 2007, will begin at 5:00 p.m. and continue until 8:00 p.m. or until
         all who wish to provide oral comments have been given the opportunity. The locations
         are accessible to people with disabilities. A court reporter will record oral comments.
         Forms will be provided on which to submit written comments. Project staff will be
         available at the meeting to informally discuss the EIS scope and the proposed project.
         Governmental agencies will be invited to a separate scoping meeting to be held during
         business hours. Further project information will be available at the scoping meetings and
         may also be obtained by calling (808) 566-2299, by downloading from
         www.honolulutransit.org, or by e-mailing info@honolulutransit.org.
         ADDRESSES: Written comments on the scope of the EIS, including the project’s
         purpose and need, the alternatives to be considered, and the related impacts to be
         assessed, should be sent to the Department of Transportation Services, City and County

NEPA Scoping Report                               Chapter 3                                 Page 3-1
Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project
           of Honolulu, 650 South King Street, 3rd Floor, Honolulu, HI, 96813, Attention: Honolulu
           High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project, or by the internet at www.honolulutransit.org.
           The scoping meetings will be held at Kapolei Hale at 1000 Uluohia Street, Kapolei, HI
           96707 on March 28, 2007, from 6:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. and at McKinley High School at
           1039 South King Street, Honolulu, HI 96814 on March 29, 2007, from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00
           p.m.
           FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Donna Turchie, Federal Transit
           Administration, Region IX, 201 Mission Street, Room 1650, San Francisco, CA, 94105,
           Phone: (415) 744-2737, Fax: (415) 744-2726.

Supplementary Information

    I. Background
           On December 7, 2005, FTA and DTS issued a notice of intent to prepare an Alternatives
           Analysis followed by a separate EIS. The DTS has now completed the planning
           Alternatives Analysis and, together with FTA, is proceeding with the NEPA review
           initiated through this scoping notice.
           The planning Alternatives Analysis, conducted in accordance with 49 United States Code
           (U.S.C.) §5309 as amended by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
           Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144),
           evaluated transit alternatives in the corridor from Kapolei to the University of Hawai‘i at
           Mānoa and to Waikīkī. Four alternatives were studied, including No Build,
           Transportation System Management, Bus operating in a Managed Lane, and Fixed
           Guideway Transit. Fixed Guideway Transit was selected as the Locally Preferred
           Alternative. The planning Alternatives Analysis is available on the project’s Web site at
           www.honolulutransit.org. The Honolulu City Council has established a fixed-guideway
           transit system connecting Kapolei and University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, with a branch to
           Waikīkī, as the locally preferred alternative. The O‘ahu Metropolitan Planning
           Organization (OMPO) has included construction of a rail transit system between Kapolei
           and the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa and Waikīkī in the 2030 O‘ahu Regional
           Transportation Plan, April 2006.

    II. Scoping
           The FTA and DTS invite all interested individuals and organizations, and Federal, State,
           and local governmental agencies and Native Hawaiian organizations, to comment on the
           project’s purpose and need, the alternatives to be considered in the EIS, and the impacts
           to be evaluated. During the scoping process, comments on the proposed statement of
           purpose and need should address its completeness and adequacy. Comments on the
           alternatives should propose alternatives that would satisfy the purpose and need at less
           cost or with greater effectiveness or less environmental or community impact and were
           not previously studied and eliminated for good cause. At this time, comments should
           focus on the scope of the NEPA review and should not state a preference for a particular
           alternative. The best opportunity for that type of input will be after the release of the
           draft EIS.

Page 3-2                                         Chapter 3                              NEPA Scoping Report
                                                               Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project
         Following the scoping process, public outreach activities with interested parties or groups
         will continue throughout the duration of work on the EIS. The project Web site,
         www.honolulutransit.org, will be updated periodically to reflect the status of the project.
         Additional opportunities for public participation will be announced through mailings,
         notices, advertisements, and press releases. Those wishing to be placed on the project
         mailing list may do so by registering on the Web site at www.honolulutransit.org, or by
         calling (808) 566-2299.

    III. Description of Study Area
         The proposed project study area is the travel corridor between Kapolei and the University
         of Hawai‘i at Mānoa (UH Mānoa) and Waikīkī. This narrow, linear corridor is confined
         by the Wai‘anae and Ko‘olau mountain ranges to the north (mauka direction) and the
         ocean to the south (makai direction). The corridor includes the majority of housing and
         employment on O‘ahu. The 2000 census indicates that 876,200 people live on O‘ahu.
         Of this number, over 552,000 people, or 63 percent, live within the corridor between
         Kapolei and Mānoa/Waikīkī. This area is projected to absorb 69 percent of the
         population growth projected to occur on O‘ahu between 2000 and 2030, resulting in an
         expected corridor population of 776,000 by 2030. Over the next twenty-three years, the
         ‘Ewa/Kapolei area is projected to have the highest rate of housing and employment
         growth on O‘ahu. The ‘Ewa/Kapolei area is developing as a “second city” to
         complement downtown Honolulu. The housing and employment growth in ‘Ewa is
         identified in the General Plan for the City and County of Honolulu.

    IV. Purpose and Need
         The purpose of the Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project is to provide high-
         capacity, high-speed transit in the highly congested east-west transportation corridor
         between Kapolei and the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, as specified in the 2030 O‘ahu
         Regional Transportation Plan (ORTP). The project is intended to provide faster, more
         reliable public transportation services in the corridor than those currently operating in
         mixed-flow traffic, to provide basic mobility in areas of the corridor where people of
         limited income live, and to serve rapidly developing areas of the corridor. The project
         would also provide an alternative to private automobile travel and improve transit
         linkages within the corridor. Implementation of the project, in conjunction with other
         improvements included in the ORTP, would moderate anticipated traffic congestion in
         the corridor. The project also supports the goals of the O‘ahu General Plan and the
         ORTP by serving areas designated for urban growth.
         The existing transportation infrastructure in the corridor between Kapolei and UH Mānoa
         is overburdened handling current levels of travel demand. Motorists and transit users
         experience substantial traffic congestion and delay at most times of the day, both on
         weekdays and on weekends. Average weekday peak-period speeds on the H-1 Freeway
         are currently less than 20 mph in many places and will degrade even further by 2030.
         Transit vehicles are caught in the same congestion. Travelers on O‘ahu’s roadways
         currently experience 51,000 vehicle hours of delay, a measure of how much time is lost
         daily by travelers stuck in traffic, on a typical weekday. This measure of delay is
         projected to increase to more than 71,000 daily vehicle hours of delay by 2030, assuming

NEPA Scoping Report                               Chapter 3                                  Page 3-3
Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project
           implementation of all of the planned improvements listed in the ORTP (except for a fixed
           guideway system). Without these improvements, the ORTP indicates that daily vehicle-
           hours of delay could increase to as much as 326,000 vehicle hours.
           Currently, motorists traveling from West O‘ahu to Downtown Honolulu experience
           highly-congested traffic conditions during the a.m. peak period. By 2030, after including
           all of the planned roadway improvements in the ORTP, the level of congestion and travel
           time are projected to increase further. Average bus speeds in the corridor have been
           decreasing steadily as congestion has increased. “TheBus” travel times are projected to
           increase substantially through 2030. Within the urban core, most major arterial streets
           will experience increasing peak-period congestion, including Ala Moana Boulevard,
           Dillingham Boulevard, Kalākaua Avenue, Kapi‘olani Boulevard, King Street, and Nimitz
           Highway. Expansion of the roadway system between Kapolei and UH Mānoa is
           constrained by physical barriers and by dense urban neighborhoods that abut many
           existing roadways. Given the current and increasing levels of congestion, a need exists to
           offer an alternative way to travel within the corridor independent of current and projected
           highway congestion.
           As roadways become more congested, they become more susceptible to substantial
           delays caused by incidents, such as traffic accidents or heavy rain. Even a single driver
           unexpectedly braking can have a ripple effect delaying hundreds of cars. Because of the
           operating conditions in the study corridor, current travel times are not reliable for either
           transit or automobile trips. To get to their destination on time, travelers must allow extra
           time in their schedules to account for the uncertainty of travel time. This lack of
           predictability is inefficient and results in lost productivity. Because the bus system
           primarily operates in mixed-traffic, transit users experience the same level of travel time
           uncertainty as automobile users. A need exists to reduce transit travel times and provide
           a more reliable transit system.
           Consistent with the General Plan for the City and County of Honolulu, the highest
           population growth rates for the island are projected in the ‘Ewa Development Plan area
           (comprised of the ‘Ewa, Kapolei and Makakilo communities), which is expected to grow
           by 170 percent between 2000 and 2030. This growth represents nearly 50 percent of the
           total growth projected for the entire island. The more rural areas of Wai‘anae, Wahiawā,
           North Shore, Waimānalo, and East Honolulu will have much lower population growth of
           between zero and 16 percent if infrastructure policies support the planned growth in the
           ‘Ewa Development Plan area. Kapolei, which is developing as a “second city” to
           Downtown Honolulu, is projected to grow by nearly 600 percent to 81,100 people, the
           ‘Ewa neighborhood by 100 percent, and Makakilo by 125 percent between 2000 and
           2030. Accessibility to the overall ‘Ewa Development Plan area is currently severely
           impaired by the congested roadway network, which will only get worse in the future.
           This area is less likely to develop as planned unless it is accessible to Downtown and
           other parts of O‘ahu; therefore, the ‘Ewa, Kapolei, and Makakilo area needs improved
           accessibility to support its future growth as planned.
           Many lower-income and minority workers live in the corridor outside of the urban core
           and commute to work in the Primary Urban Center Development Plan area. Many lower-
           income workers also rely on transit because of its affordability. In addition, daily parking

Page 3-4                                         Chapter 3                               NEPA Scoping Report
                                                                Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project
         costs in Downtown Honolulu are among the highest in the United States, further limiting
         this population’s access to Downtown. Improvements to transit capacity and reliability
         will serve all transportation system users, including moderate- and low-income
         populations.

    V. Alternatives
         The alternatives proposed for evaluation in the EIS were developed through a planning
         Alternatives Analysis that resulted in selection of a Fixed Guideway Transit Alternative
         as the locally preferred alternative (LPA). FTA and DTS propose to consider the
         following alternatives:
             •    Future No Build Alternative, which would include existing transit and highway
                  facilities and planned transportation projects (excluding the proposed project)
                  anticipated to be operational by the year 2030. Bus service levels consistent with
                  existing transit service policies is assumed for all areas within the project corridor
                  under the Future No Build Alternative.
             •    Fixed Guideway Alternatives, which would include the construction and
                  operation of a fixed guideway transit system in the corridor between Kapolei and
                  UH Mānoa with a branch to Waikīkī. The draft EIS would consider five distinct
                  transit technologies: light rail transit, rapid rail transit, rubber-tired guided
                  vehicles, a magnetic levitation system, and a monorail system. Comments on
                  reducing the range of technologies under consideration are encouraged. The draft
                  EIS also would consider two alignment alternatives. Both alignment alternatives
                  would operate, for the most part, on a transit-guideway structure elevated above
                  the roadway, with some sections at grade. Both alignment alternatives generally
                  follow the route: North-South Road to Farrington Highway/Kamehameha
                  Highway to Salt Lake Boulevard to Dillingham Boulevard to Nimitz
                  Highway/Halekauwila Street. Both alignment alternatives would have a future
                  extension from downtown Honolulu to UH Mānoa with a future branch to
                  Waikīkī, and a future extension at the Wai‘anae (western) end to Kalaeloa
                  Boulevard in Kapolei. The second alignment alternative would have an
                  additional loop created by a fork in the alignment at Aloha Stadium to serve
                  Honolulu International Airport that would rejoin the main alignment in the
                  vicinity of the Middle Street Transit Center. The first construction phase for
                  either of the Fixed Guideway Alternatives is currently expected to begin in the
                  vicinity of the planned University of Hawai‘i West O‘ahu campus and extend to
                  Ala Moana Center via Salt Lake Boulevard. The Build Alternatives also include
                  the construction of a vehicle maintenance facility, transit stations and ancillary
                  facilities such as park-and-ride lots and traction-power substations, and the
                  modification and expansion of bus service to maximize overall efficiency of
                  transit operation.
         Other reasonable alternatives suggested during the scoping process may be added if they
         were not previously evaluated and eliminated for good cause on the basis of the
         Alternatives Analysis and are consistent with the project’s purpose and need. The
         planning Alternatives Analysis is available for public and agency review on the project

NEPA Scoping Report                               Chapter 3                                      Page 3-5
Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project
           Web site at www.honolulutransit.org. It is also available for inspection at the project
           office by calling (808) 566-2299 or by e-mailing info@honolulutransit.org.

    VI. Probable Effects
           The EIS will evaluate and fully disclose the environmental consequences of the
           construction and operation of a fixed guideway transit system on O‘ahu. The EIS will
           evaluate the impacts of all reasonable alternatives on land use, zoning, residential and
           business displacements, parklands, economic development, community disruptions,
           environmental justice, aesthetics, noise, wildlife, vegetation, endangered species,
           farmland, water quality, wetlands, waterways, floodplains, hazardous waste materials,
           and cultural, historic, and archaeological resources. To ensure that all significant issues
           related to this proposed action are identified and addressed, scoping comments and
           suggestions on more specific issues of environmental or community impact are invited
           from all interested parties. Comments and questions should be directed to the DTS as
           noted in the ADDRESSES section above.

    VII. FTA Procedures
           The EIS will be prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of
           1969 (NEPA), as amended, and its implementing regulations by the Council on
           Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 CFR parts 1500-1508) and by the FTA and Federal
           Highway Administration (“Environmental Impact and Related Procedures” at 23 CFR
           part 771). In accordance with FTA regulation and policy, the NEPA process will also
           address the requirements of other applicable environmental laws, regulations, and
           executive orders, including, but not limited to: Federal transit laws [49 USC 5301(e),
           5323(b), and 5324(b)], Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, Section
           4(f) (“Protection of Public Lands”) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act (49
           U.S.C. §303), Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and the Executive Orders on
           Environmental Justice, Floodplain Management, and Protection of Wetlands.

                  Dated: March 12, 2007


                  _____________________________
                  Leslie T. Rogers
                  Regional Administrator




Page 3-6                                         Chapter 3                               NEPA Scoping Report
                                                                Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project
Chapter 4                                                            Agency Scoping
Notification of Agency Scoping Meeting
         The agency scoping meeting was held to provide an opportunity for those agencies
         potentially interested in the project, or having relevant expertise pertaining to the project,
         to have input at an early stage. Invitation letters were sent between March 16 and March
         19, 2007, to Federal, State and County agencies and utility companies that had either
         participated in prior transit planning efforts on O‘ahu or had responsibilities or expertise
         that were considered to play a role in the current transit planning program. Under the
         provisions of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
         Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) Section 6002, a coordination plan and an invitation to
         participate in the project were sent to the agencies listed in Table 4-1. Other parties that
         received invitations to the agency scoping meeting are shown in Table 4-2. Twenty
         individuals from the agencies noted in Table 4-1 and Table 4-2 attended the meeting.

Summary of Agency Scoping Meeting
         The agency scoping meeting was held from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on March 28 2007,
         at Honolulu Hale, Mission Memorial Auditorium. Twenty agencies and utility
         companies attended the scoping meeting. Table 4-1 and Table 4-2 provide information
         about the agencies invited to the scoping meeting, those who attended, those who
         provided scoping input, and those who requested further consultation.
         The meeting was recorded on a digital audio recorder, and notes of the discussions were
         taken. The meeting was moderated by the director of DTS and the project consulting
         team, and the presentation included the meeting purpose, introduction to the project,
         alternatives under consideration, planning process overview and schedule, and plans for
         public scoping. DTS stated that comments pertaining to purpose and need, alternatives,
         and scope of analysis would be particularly useful at this time.
         Following the presentation, questions were requested. The subsequent discussion and
         written comments received from the agencies are summarized below.

Agency Scoping Questions and Responses
         Questions were asked at the meeting related to three topics: right-of-way, air clearances,
         and security. The U.S. Army requested additional information and further consultation
         related to transit right-of-way needs across Fort Shafter military property. Subsequent to
         the meeting, a set of more detailed plans was sent to the U.S. Army Garrison-Hawai‘i
         Department of Public Works.




NEPA Scoping Report                               Chapter 4                                     Page 4-1
Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project
Table 4-1. Agencies Invited to be Participating Agencies and their Status
                                                     Cooperating Participating Attended Provided
                                                       Agency      Agency      Scoping Scoping
                    Agency                            Invitation  Invitation   Meeting Comment
U.S. Department of Defense (U.S. Army Corps of
                                                            X                             X             X
Engineers)
U.S. Department of Defense (U.S. Army Garrison-
                                                            X                             X
Hawai‘i)
U.S. Department of Defense (U.S. Naval Base
                                                            X
Pearl Harbor)
U.S. Department of Homeland Security (U.S.
                                                            X
Coast Guard – 14th Coast Guard District)
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal
                                                            X
Highway Administration
State of Hawai‘i, Department of Transportation              X                                           X
U.S. Department of Agriculture (Natural
                                                                          X
Resources Conservation Service)
U.S. Department of the Interior (Fish and Wildlife
                                                                          X
Service)
U.S. Department of the Interior (National Park
                                                                          X
Service)
U.S. Department of the Interior (U.S. Geological
Survey Pacific Island Ecosystems Research                                 X
Center)
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal
                                                                          X               X             X
Aviation Administration
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency                                      X
U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency                                  X
State of Hawai‘i Department of Accounting and
                                                                          X               X
General Services
State of Hawai‘i Department of Business,
                                                                          X
Economic Development, and Tourism
State of Hawai‘i Department of Defense                                    X
State of Hawai‘i Department of Education                                  X               X
State of Hawai‘i, Department of Hawaiian Home
                                                                          X                             *
Lands
State of Hawai‘i Department of Health                                     X               X
State of Hawai‘i Department of Land and Natural
                                                                          X
Resources
State of Hawai‘i, Department of Land and Natural
                                                                          X
Resources (State Historic Preservation Division)
State of Hawai‘I, Hawai‘i Community Development
                                                                          X               X             *
Authority
State of Hawai‘i, Office of Environmental Quality
                                                                          X
Control
State of Hawai‘i Office of Hawaiian Affairs                               X
State of Hawai‘i University of Hawai‘i                                    X               X
O‘ahu Metropolitan Planning Organization                                  X               X
* Agency did not submit individual comment, but did sign the East Kapolei Developers’
comment letter.




Page 4-2                                        Chapter 4                                NEPA Scoping Report
                                                                Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project
Table 4-2. Agency Scoping Meeting Additional Invited Participants
                                                                            Attended    Provided
                                                                            Scoping     Scoping
                                      Agency                                Meeting     Comment
U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Army Garrison-Hawai‘i – Department of
                                                                               X
Public Works
U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Corps of Engineers – Pacific Ocean
Division
U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Corps of Engineers – Honolulu District
U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Air Force – 15th CES Hickam AFB
State of Hawai‘i, Department of Transportation – Highways Division
State of Hawai‘i, Department of Transportation – Harbors Division
State of Hawai‘i, Department of Transportation – Airports Division
State of Hawai‘i Department of Health – Office of Planning
State of Hawai‘i Department of Health – Solid and Hazardous Waste Branch
State of Hawai‘i Department of Health – Noise, Radiation and Indoor Air
Quality Branch
State of Hawai‘i Department of Health – Clean Water Branch
State of Hawai‘i Department of Health – Clean Air Branch
State of Hawai‘i Department of Land and Natural Resources – State Parks
Division
State of Hawai‘i Department of Land and Natural Resources – Land Division
State of Hawai‘i Department of Land and Natural Resources – Commission
on Water Resource Management
State of Hawai‘i Department of Business, Economic Development, and
Tourism – Strategic and Industries Division
State of Hawai‘i Department of Business, Economic Development, and
Tourism – Office of Planning
Aloha Tower Development Corporation                                            X
Legislative Reference Bureau
State of Hawai‘i University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa                                X
State of Hawai‘i University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa – Hamilton Library
State of Hawai‘i University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa – Water Resources
Research Center
State of Hawai‘i University of Hawai‘i – Facilities, Grounds, and Safety
State of Hawai‘i University of Hawai‘i – Environmental Center
State of Hawai‘i University of Hawai‘i West O‘ahu                              X            *
Leeward Community College                                                      X
Honolulu Community College                                                     X
Honolulu Board of Water Supply
The Gas Company
Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc.                                                             X
Hawaiian Telecom
Oceanic Time Warner Cable
* Agency did not submit individual comment, but did sign the East Kapolei Developers’
comment letter.
         The FAA asked if runway clearance airspace limits had been checked for the airport
         alignment. They were told that the limits would be checked. Later review of project
         plans and Honolulu International Airport restrictions showed that the plans allow for
         sufficient clearances.



NEPA Scoping Report                               Chapter 4                                 Page 4-3
Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project
           One subject of questions was related to security planning. FTA requires a security plan,
           which will be developed during system design and operational planning.
           In its written comments, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers informed the City that a
           permit may be required from the Corps to construct the project. Coordination will
           continue with the Corps to ensure that permitting requirements are met. Comments in
           other areas included the suggested change of the purpose and need to remove the
           reference to high-speed. The FTA and DTS believe that transit travel times comparable
           or better than driving times in the corridor are integral to the purpose of the project.
           Substantially slower transit travel times would be detrimental to the purpose of the
           project; therefore, the reference to transit speed remains in the Purpose and Need for the
           project.
           The Corps’ concerns about independent utility are noted; it is because of these concerns
           that the project being evaluated in the EIS includes not only the First Project, but also
           anticipated future extensions, to avoid artificial segmentation of the project in the
           decision-making process.
           The Corps concerns related to aquatic resources and recommendations for data collection
           and impact analysis are appreciated and further coordination will be completed during
           preparation of the EIS.
           The State of Hawai‘i Department of Transportation commented on two areas. One
           comment was that an alternative including an airport alignment should be included in the
           EIS. In response to this comment, a third build alternative is being added to the draft EIS
           that evaluates the airport alignment exclusively. Second, they requested evaluation of
           traffic impacts to State highways. Traffic conditions will be one of the elements
           evaluated during the EIS process.
           Written comments received from agencies are provided in Appendix A-1.




Page 4-4                                         Chapter 4                               NEPA Scoping Report
                                                                Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project
Chapter 5                                                            Public Scoping
Clarification of the Scoping Process
         A number of commenters expressed confusion about the scoping process. First, the
         scoping process completed in January 2006 solicited comments on the project’s
         Environmental Impact Preparation Notice (EISPN) and the purpose and need,
         alternatives, and scope of analysis for the Alternatives Analysis and the follow-on EIS.
         As stated in the Notice of Intent issued on March 15, 2007, that Notice of Intent
         superceded the one published on December 5, 2005.
         As required by SAFETEA-LU Section 6002, input from the public has been sought
         regarding both the purpose and need, and the alternatives being evaluated. This input
         was initially sought during the planning Alternatives Analysis scoping period, and
         changes were made to the purpose and need at that time as documented in the Honolulu
         High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Scoping Report dated April 6, 2006. The
         purpose and need was further refined after completion of the Honolulu High-Capacity
         Transit Project Alternatives Analysis Report and selection of the Locally Preferred
         Alternative; therefore, the public was again asked to provide comments on the purpose
         and need during the NEPA scoping period.
         Scoping meetings are not intended to be public hearings to express preferences about a
         project. As stated in the Notice of Intent, comments should focus on the scope of the
         NEPA review and should not state a preference for a particular alternative. The scoping
         meetings were designed to maximize the potential to collect information pertinent to the
         completion of the EIS, while minimizing the demands on the public’s time spent listening
         to information not relevant to their concerns or to the scoping process.

Summary of Public Comments
         During the NEPA scoping comment period, 104 comment submissions were received via
         mail, the website, and the scoping meetings. Comments received from local
         organizations are provided in Appendix A-2, comments from businesses are in Appendix
         A-3, and comments received from the general public are provided in Appendix A-4.
         Correspondence that only requested placement on the mailing list are not included in this
         report. Comments that focus on a preference for alternatives that have previously been
         evaluated and eliminated from consideration are included in the appendices to this report
         but are neither summarized nor considered. No new alternatives to a fixed-guideway
         transit system that would meet the project’s purpose and need and that were not
         previously considered and eliminated were identified during the scoping process.
         Information on previously considered alternatives is available in the Honolulu High-
         Capacity Transit Project Alternatives Analysis Report. Questions pertaining to the
         selection of the Fixed Guideway Alternative as the Locally Preferred Alternative relative
         to other alternatives evaluated were addressed in the Honolulu High-Capacity Transit
         Project Summary of City Council Hearings Testimony, and are not repeated in this report.



NEPA Scoping Report                               Chapter 5                                  Page 5-1
Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project
           Likewise, comments on taxation that are not specific to the financial plan for the project
           and the decision making process by the City Council, as established in the City Charter,
           are neither summarized nor considered in this report, but have been included in the
           appendices. Similarly, comments focused on the O‘ahu 2030 Regional Transportation
           Plan, highway operation, and ferry service are outside of the scope and authority of the
           transit project and are not addressed.
           Comments that relate to process, presentation materials, and website design have been
           included in the appendices, as well as reviewed and considered, but are not summarized
           or responded to in this report.
           The majority of comments received related to a preference for one of the alternatives or a
           proposed modification to one of the alternatives.

Substantive Comments on Purpose and Need, Alternatives,
and Scope of Analysis
Comments Related to Purpose and Need
           Comments were received that the purpose and need statement should be expanded to
           address traffic congestion and highway capacity for private automobiles. The Honolulu
           High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project is evaluating one aspect of island-wide
           transportation needs in coordination with the OMPO, which is responsible for integrated
           transportation planning. The Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project analysis
           is meant to evaluate project alternatives that may be constructed within the authorization
           of Act 247, enacted by the Hawai‘i State Legislature in 2005. The act prohibits the
           construction of a non-transit project with the authorized excise-tax surcharge. Projects
           with the purpose of providing roadway mobility for automobiles and commercial vehicles
           are not fundable by Act 247; therefore, they will not be added to the purpose of the
           Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project. All projects relating to commercial or
           private automobile mobility included in the O‘ahu 2030 Regional Transportation Plan
           were included in all alternatives evaluated in the Alternatives Analysis process and will
           be included in all alternatives evaluated in the EIS. The purpose of the project reflects
           that a high-capacity transit system would reduce congestion compared to the No Build
           Alternative, but cannot be expected to reduce congestion to the extent that automobile
           traffic would flow freely in the corridor at all times.

Comments Related to Alternatives
           The majority of substantive public comments related specifically to the proposed
           alternatives. Several comments suggested reconsideration of previously eliminated
           alternatives. Comments and questions on this topic reflected issues already addressed in
           the Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Summary of City Council
           Hearings Testimony, and are not repeated in this report.
           Several comments were received on which portion of the Locally Preferred Alternative
           should be constructed first. The most-frequent suggestion was that the airport alignment
           should be constructed as opposed to the Salt Lake Boulevard alignment. In response to

Page 5-2                                         Chapter 5                               NEPA Scoping Report
                                                                Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project
         this comment, a third build alternative is being added to the draft EIS that evaluates the
         airport alignment exclusively. Suggestions also were made to construct the sections to
         UH Mānoa and Waikīkī prior to other portions of the corridor. These issues were
         addressed during City Council selection of the First Project. First, no sites are available
         in the Koko Head end of the study corridor to provide a required maintenance and
         storage facility. Second, the Koko Head end of the corridor, without the complementary
         benefits provided by including the ‘Ewa end of the corridor, has a higher cost per user
         benefit than the proposed First Project; therefore, transit riders would receive fewer
         benefits from UH Mānoa and Waikīkī service than from the proposed First Project at the
         same fixed construction cost. Both UH Mānoa and Waikīkī service are included in all
         fixed guideway alternatives that will be evaluated in the EIS.
         One comment suggested providing additional bus service with either school buses or
         private vehicles. These options represent variations on the Transportation System
         Management Alternative evaluated in the Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor
         Project Alternatives Analysis Report. They would provide additional bus capacity using
         different vehicles or limited only to certain times of day compared to what was evaluated
         in the Transportation System Management Alternative, but would not differ structurally
         from that alternative. These options would not provide substantial benefit compared to
         the Transportation System Management Alternative already evaluated; therefore, they are
         not being advanced for analysis in the EIS.
         Comments relating to station location, design, and community integration will be
         considered during preliminary engineering and their environmental effects addressed in
         the EIS. These comments include such issues as parking availability, station access, and
         bus transfer facilities.
         Comments were received in favor of monorail, light rail, and rapid rail. Selecting a
         technology that allows for a narrow low-profile guideway was suggested. No
         information was received that would eliminate one or more of the transit technologies
         currently under consideration.
         Several comments suggested policy changes related to the relocation of jobs at the
         University of Hawai‘i, limiting car ownership, changing development patterns through
         tax incentives, restricting parking, mandating carpools, congestion pricing, requiring all
         students to bus to school, restricting deliveries to nighttime hours, and limiting the
         number of people who may move to O‘ahu. These proposals and other policies
         mentioned are outside the purpose of providing a high-capacity transit system.
         Several commenters suggested shifting the Wai‘anae end of the corridor into ‘Ewa. An
         alignment on Fort Weaver Road was evaluated, documented, and eliminated in the
         Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Alternatives Analysis Report.
         Extending the First Project further Wai‘anae by one additional station also was
         suggested. This will be considered during preliminary engineering if a funding source is
         identified to provide the additional station and guideway.
         One commenter suggested shifting the Kona Street alignment to Kapi’olani Boulevard.
         These alignments were previously reviewed early in the Alternatives Analysis phase, and


NEPA Scoping Report                               Chapter 5                                   Page 5-3
Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project
           Kapi’olani Boulevard was eliminated because of the lack of space for column placement,
           lack of suitable space for stations without substantial property acquisition, and the greater
           distance to bus transfers at Ala Moana Center.
           One commenter suggested a High Speed Bus Alternative that would include aspects of
           both the Managed Lane Alternative that was eliminated during the planning alternatives
           analysis process and the Fixed Guideway Alternative. The concept was to construct an
           elevated roadway for the extent of the Fixed Guideway Alignment, provide wide passing
           zones at stations, and several access ramps. This alternative would be more costly and
           have more severe impacts to many elements of the environment because of its increased
           width, both for the entire length of the system as compared to the Fixed Guideway
           Alternative and substantial width approaching 100 feet at stations. These impacts would
           be similar to those of the Two-Direction Managed Lane Alternative described in the
           Alternatives Analysis but would extend for the entire length of the corridor from Kapolei
           to UH Mānoa. Substantial right-of-way would be required to accommodate the structure
           through urban Honolulu. In addition, right-of-way would be required for the additional
           proposed ramps. While the system could provide some additional transit user benefit by
           reducing the number of passenger transfers between the bus and fixed guideway system,
           this small benefit would be greatly off-set by the significant impacts of the alternative;
           therefore, the alternative is not being advanced for analysis in the EIS.

Comments Related to Scope of Analysis
           A wide range of issues was identified for consideration in the analysis. No comments
           were received identifying previously unknown resources or hazards located along the
           proposed alignments of any of the alternatives. One commenter noted two sites on the
           National Register of Historic Places that were already identified during preparation of the
           Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Project Historic and Archaeological Technical Report
           to support the Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Project Alternatives Analysis Report.
           Aesthetics and views were widely mentioned, including the effects of an elevated system,
           impacts on trees, and effects of advertising on the visual environment. Other concerns
           were raised about construction impacts and project phasing, noise impacts, right-of-way
           requirements and displacements, economic impacts, air quality, community connectivity,
           energy consumption and conservation options, emergency services and public safety,
           service to elderly and disadvantaged populations, natural resources, natural hazards,
           effects on land use and zoning, utility relocations, maintenance of traffic, and impacts to
           parks and recreational facilities. The identified topics of concern will all be evaluated in
           the EIS. Other issues of concern that were identified, but are not directly related to
           impacts on the environment, are the future financial and transportation performance of
           the system. As project development continues, the Honolulu High-Capacity Transit
           Project Financial Plan and Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Project Transportation
           Impact Report will be revised and summarized in the EIS.




Page 5-4                                         Chapter 5                               NEPA Scoping Report
                                                                Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project
Chapter 6                                                                  Conclusions
         The goals of the scoping process were to establish the purpose of and the needs for the
         Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project, identify the alternatives that should be
         evaluated for the project, and determine the scope of the analysis that will be conducted
         to support the EIS.
         A purpose and need, list of alternatives, and list of topics to be evaluated that emerged
         from the planning Alternatives Analysis process were presented to the public and other
         interested parties. The comments received from members of the public and consulted
         agencies resulted in an addition to the alternatives being evaluated. A third fixed
         guideway alternative that would directly serve Honolulu International Airport will be
         included in the EIS.
         Comments on transit technologies for the Fixed Guideway Alternatives (Alternatives 2
         and 3) were reviewed; however, no information was received that would eliminate one or
         more of the transit technologies currently under consideration.
         Comments received on the scope of the environmental analysis included concerns about
         such topics as noise, environmental justice, visual impacts, natural resources, energy, and
         displacements. The EIS will evaluate the effects of each alternative on each of the
         elements of the environment listed in the Comments Related to Scope of Analysis section
         in Chapter 5 of this report. The analysis will follow applicable U.S. Department of
         Transportation guidelines. Appropriate mitigation measures will be evaluated during
         preparation of the EIS.




NEPA Scoping Report                               Chapter 6                                  Page 6-1
Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project
Appendix A                                                     Scoping Comments




NEPA Scoping Report                               Appendix A                Page A-1
Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project
Page A-2   Appendix A                            NEPA Scoping Report
                        Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project
Appendix A-1: Agency NEPA Scoping Comments




NEPA Scoping Report                               Appendix A   Page A-3
Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project
Page A-4   Appendix A                            NEPA Scoping Report
                        Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project
A-5
A-6
A-7
A-8
A-9
A-10
A-11
A-12
A-13
A-14
A-15
A-16
A-17
A-18
A-19
A-20
A-21
A-22
A-23
A-24
A-25
A-26
A-27
A-28
A-29
A-30
Appendix A-2: Organization NEPA Scoping Comments




NEPA Scoping Report                               Appendix A   Page A-31
Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project
Page A-32   Appendix A                            NEPA Scoping Report
                         Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project
                                     Web Site Comment
                                   www.honolulutransit.org


                                                                                        3/22/2007


FROM:
Michelle Matson
Waikiki Area Residents Association
3931 Gail Street
Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96815
MSMatson@hawaii.rr.com

COMMENT:
The instructions for your scoping process are very confusing in your newsletter, especially
regarding "alternatives" as used in the context of route alignments, and then as technologies, and
then "alignments (routes)" again. Which "alternatives" apply to which comment category in b)
below?

The city's transit newsletter at http://www.honolulutransit.org states the following regarding the
EIS: "The EIS WILL BE PREPARED to meet both state and federal requirements. On the
federal level, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and its implementing
regulations are applicable. On the State level relevant law is found in Chapter 343 of the Hawaii
Revised Statutes. "Two transit routes are proposed for analysis in the EIS. BOTH
ALTERNATIVES encompass the full transit corridor described in the LPA, going from West
Kapolei to the University of Hawaii at Manoa, and Waikiki. BOTH ALTERNATIVES also
include the First Project (Minimum Operating Segment?) between East Kapolei and Ala Moana
Center. ONE ALTERNATIVE follows Salt Lake Boulevard between Aloha Stadium and Middle
Street, while THE OTHER ALTERNATIVE includes both Salt Lake Boulevard and Airport
alignments..... "The public is invited to comment on the following: a) The purpose of and needs
to be addressed by THE PROJECT; b) THE ALTERNATIVES (alternative routes as above, or
alternative technologies?), including the technologies, to be evaluated; c) ALIGNMENTS
(ROUTES) and termination points (West Kapolei, East Kapolei, Ala Moana Center, UH Manoa,
Waikiki?) to be considered; and d) The environmental, social and economic impacts to be
analyzed (per HRS 343?)." What is also strange, and appears somewhat deceiving to the reader
and confusing to the public, is that this same newsletter notes, "The SCOPING ACTIVITIES
RELATED TO Hawaii Revised Statutes CHAPTER 343 process WERE COMPLETED between
December 2005 and January 2006." (EIS law HRS 343 specific to d) above, on which the public
is invited to comment for the purposes of this scoping process?) When reading this, some
members of the public are now made to believe that the invited scoping comments will be strictly
limited to the apparently still-pending Salt Lake and/or Airport route segment question. (EIS
definition: "Environmental impact statement" or "statement" means an informational document
prepared in compliance with the rules adopted under section 343-6 and which discloses the
environmental effects of a proposed action, effects of a proposed action on the economic welfare,
social welfare, and cultural practices of the community and State, effects of the economic
activities arising out of the proposed action, measures proposed to minimize adverse effects, and
alternatives to the action and their environmental effects.) Please clarify exactly what it is for
which you are inviting public comments.

                                             Page A-33
                                    Web Site Comment
                                  www.honolulutransit.org


                                                                                      3/30/2007


FROM:
Dexter Okada
Kaka'ako Business and Landowners Association
P.O.Box 898
Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96808
dexter.okada@uokada.com, 597-1102

COMMENT:
My name is Dexter Okada. My small family business has been in Kaka’ako for over fifty years. I
also represent Kaka’ako Business and Landowners Association. Our basic mantra is community
input. In other words, we want to have a voice in determining the future of our community not
just commenting at scoping meetings.

In the central Kaka’ako area, there are many small properties. On these properties are small
businesses. Many of these small business are light industrial or service businesses that serve
communities from downtown out to East Oahu and to the windward side. The economic impacts
of the route and the resulting transit oriented developments could have a tragic impact on these
small businesses and small properties. Eminent domain is a frightening phrase for small property
owners. Hawaii Community Development Authority is currently revising their Mauka Plan and
Rules to help the small businesses and small property owners in Kaka’ako. Will the transit
project undermine this effort? It is often said that small business is the backbone of Hawai’i’s
economy. Will the transit project be another burden placed on the backs of the small businesses
in Kaka’ako?




                                            Page A-34
Page A-35
Page A-36
Page A-37
Page A-38
Page A-39
From: Liu, Rouen [mailto:rouen.liu@heco.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 3:06 PM
To: Nalani E. Dahl
Subject: High Capacity Transit Corridor Project EIS process - comments from Hawaiian Electric Company



Thank you for allowing Hawaiian Electric Company (HECO) to be a part of the planning
process.

In the EIS, please identify and address the following:
1) energy (electrical power) requirements for the various alternatives;
2) facilities necessary to meet energy requirements;
3) costs associated with meeting energy requirements;
4) existing utilities that will require relocation and the associated costs;
5) permits and approvals needed to meet energy requirements and necessary existing
utility relocations; and
6) emergency generation to temporarily power the system as well as emergency fuel
storage, emergency generator emissions, and noise.

Please note that HECO's work and associated costs related to the transit may be
subject to approval by the State Public Utilities Commission. For this and
other planning reasons, HECO would prefer to coordinate and plan for electrical needs
or relocation as soon as practical.



Rouen Liu
Project Administrator
Hawaiian Electric Company

This message was also entered via the internet at www.honolulutransit.org as instructed in page 1-3 of
the scoping information package. Due by April 13, 2007




                                                Page A-40
Page A-41
Page A-42
Page A-43
Page A-44
Page A-45
                        HONOLULUTRAFFIC.COM
                           SEEKING COST-EFFECTIVE SOLUTIONS TO TRAFFIC CONGESTION




March 18, 2007

Ms. Donna Turchie
Federal Transit Administration, Region IX
201 Mission Street, Room 1650
San Francisco, CA 94105


Dear Ms. Turchie:
         Elimination of Managed Lanes from Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project
We object to your failure to include a Managed Lane Alternative (MLA) in your Notice of Intent
(NOI) of March 15, 2007, and ask that the notice be amended to include an MLA, and then be
republished. We would also like you to clarify the reasons for having two NOIs in effect
concurrently.

The double NOI issue.
Neither the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) nor the City and County of Honolulu (City) has
made any attempt to clarify why FTA issued a second NOI. While the NOI of December 7, 2005,
initiated the NEPA process, the NOI of March 15, 2007, informs us that the NEPA review is
“initiated through this scoping notice.” Does this mean the old NOI is cancelled? Have we not been
in the NEPA process since December 2005?
We also see from the new Scoping Information Package that scoping under HRS 343 was
completed in 2005 and that this new scoping is only to satisfy NEPA. However, the NOI of
December 5, 2005 and the Scoping Report of April 6, 2006, both discussed the scoping at that time
being done under NEPA. We realize that you may not be deliberately confusing the issue, but the
result is the same.
Further, we did not receive any response to Honolulutraffic.com’s 13 pages of specific comments1
dated January 9, 2006, until February 22, 2007, and even then it was, for the most part, the usual
Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB) boiler plate with few of the specifics addressed. Assumedly, this aspect
of the NEPA process does not require “public involvement.”

MLA denied fair and equitable treatment
The MLA was denied fair and equitable treatment in the Alternatives Analysis (AA) by the City
and County of Honolulu (City) and Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB). As a direct and intended result, the
MLA was unjustly eliminated — not for "good cause" but rather for political cause. We submit that
this was a blatant violation of the spirit and intent of the regulations that govern the environmental
process; we further submit that only by reinstating MLA into your Notice of Intent and the Scoping
process, can Honolulu aspire to reducing its traffic congestion. The following supports these
claims.
Excessive MLA capital cost projection
PB projects initial costs of $2.6 billion for the two-lane reversible elevated Managed Lanes
Alternative (MLA) in addition to bus costs (AA, p. 5-2).

1
      Attached to covering email as Scoping_comments_3.pdf
    3105 Pacific Hts Rd Honolulu HI 96813 ❖ phone 808·285·7799❖ fax 808·545·4495❖ email: info@honolulutraffic.com

                                                     Page A-46
                                                                                                        Page 2


To put that projected cost in perspective, it is seven times the cost of Tampa’s comparable new ten-
mile three-lane elevated reversible expressway and 50 percent greater than the cost of the H-3
highway – even allowing for inflation. At such a cost the MLA would replace H-3 as America’s
costliest highway, despite H-3 being twice the size, built over difficult terrain, and with extensive
tunneling.
The soft costs alone for the MLA are projected at $549 million,2 which is 30 percent more than the
cost of the entire Tampa Expressway, including the $120 million overrun error by URS Corp.
Since we lack sufficient details about the MLA, what may well be driving up the cost are the 5,200
parking stalls (AA, p. 3-8) built into the project, which are almost entirely unnecessary. We have
failed to find any significant parking associated with an MLA elsewhere in the country.
To bolster our stand on PB's exaggerating capital costs for the MLA, we have attached comments
by Dr. Martin Stone, AICP, Planning Director of the Tampa Expressway Authority, who says, in
this detailed four page letter that,
      “It is completely dishonest to say the elevated HOT lane in your transit alternatives analysis is similar
      to our elevated reversible lanes. And, it is this dishonesty that results in your HOT lanes costing $2.6
      billion instead of the less than $1 billion that a true copy of our project would cost.”3
During the AA process, the City Council appointed a Transit Advisory Task Force to assist them in
evaluating the AA. It consisted of six politically-connected people whose views could be relied
upon to support the City's agenda, and Dr. Panos Prevedouros, Professor of Traffic Engineering at
the University of Hawaii, whose views are based on engineering and science, and not politics.
The Chairman appointed two members to a Technical Review Subcommittee to review
construction costs. One had been a long time employee of the state DOT and the other was the
recently retired Director of Honolulu’s City Department of Transportation Services (DTS).
After their first report to the Task Force, we asked them who they had contacted since there needed
to be a reconciliation of the Tampa Expressway cost (less the design error) of $320 million and the
PB estimate of $2.6 billion for the MLA. They told us they had only talked to PB, but had been
assured that the costs were accurate.
We pushed for a consultation with the Tampa Expressway Authority and especially with PCL
Construction, Inc., since they had built the Tampa Expressway, the Hawaii Convention Center, and
maintained offices in both Tampa and Honolulu and would be familiar with the costs and
construction difficulties in both cities. One of the subcommittee members made a phone call to
Tampa; no one contacted PCL. The subcommittee report is attached to the covering email; the lack
of due diligence warranted by a multi-billion dollar project is quite evident, and may reflect a
breach of the fiduciary duty to investigate and verify the facts and take the necessary steps
commensurate with the amounts involved.
After consulting with many industry professionals, we have projected a cost of $900 million for the
MLA, including a 25 percent allowance for cost overruns. This is still more than twice the cost of
the Tampa Expressway. At $900 million, the MLA would surely have been the LPA, and that is the
reason, we submit, for the exaggerated capital cost estimates by PB.
Excessive operating cost
The high operating cost for the MLA is mainly caused by the large number of buses projected for
it. The following bus fleet data is taken from the AA, table 2-1, and the daily trips data from the
AA, table 3-7. The percentages shown are calculated from these data.

2
    Capital Costing Memorandum, App. A, Alternative 3.
3
    Attached to covering email as stoneTampa.doc.


                                                  Page A-47
                                                                                                            Page 3


                           % change in buses                             % change in trips
                                                                 thous
                  Bus      from         from        from         trips   from        from        from
    Alternative   Fleet    exist        NB          TSM          daily   exist       NB          TSM
    Existing      525      0.0%         N/A         N/A          178.4   0.0%        N/A         N/A
    NB            614      17.0%        0.0%        N/A          232.1   30.1%       0.0%        N/A
    TSM           765      45.7%        24.6%       0.0%         243.1   36.3%       4.7%        0.0%
    MLA           906      72.6%        47.6%       18.4%        244.4   37.0%       5.3%        0.5%
    Rail-Halek    540      2.9%         -12.1%      -29.4%       294.1   64.9%       26.7%       21.0%


Note that the MLA is projected to have a bus fleet nearly 50 percent greater than the No-build
alternative, yet gain only five percent more trips. This small increase is projected despite the MLA
offering bus users the advantage of a congestion free ride from the Leeward end of the corridor to
downtown.
The 906 buses projected are far too many buses for the projected MLA ridership. It should be
anticipated that more riders per bus would be achieved by the MLA option in the Corridor since
buses using the MLA would be operating at far higher speeds than either the No-Build or the TSM
and thus able to make more trips per bus; the round trip can be made by returning on the relatively
uncongested freeway.

Insufficient ridership projected for the MLA
The MLA should project significantly more riders than the No-Build or TSM Alternatives since it
will offer potential bus riders a significant time savings of 16 minutes versus automobile travel on
the regular freeway. Currently, buses take 39 minutes to travel 13 miles at 20mph on the regular
freeway.
If we assume that the number of cars removed from the freeway by the MLA will decrease travel
times by 25 percent then buses (and cars) on the regular freeway will take 29 minutes to traverse
the 13 miles. Buses on the MLA will take 13 minutes and will offer a significant and enticing 16
minute time savings to some motorists to switch to buses.

Killing the MLA advantage
The AA version of the MLA allowing free passage to HOV-2s significantly reduces the advantages
of the MLA over rail transit.
To add insult, PB said in a letter to us that “A two-lane reversible option for the Managed Lanes
Alternative, matching what you have proposed, has been added to the range of alternatives being
evaluated in the Alternatives Analysis.” 4
What we actually proposed was a 10-13 mile facility and in our comments on the original Scoping
wrote, “On the HOT lanes, buses and vanpools would have priority and travel free, other vehicles
would pay a toll ...”5 What resulted was a 16-mile facility, unnecessarily lengthened to presumably
drive up costs, with HOVs allowed free.



4
      Letter signed by Mr. Melvin Kaku, DTS Director to me on 2/26/2007 by Mr. Lawrence Spurgeon of PB and dated
      6/20/2006. It refers to “AA and Chapter 343 Scoping of the Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project.”
5
      Scoping Report, Appendix B. page 46 of 100.


                                                     Page A-48
                                                                                                    Page 4


First, allowing HOV-2s at no charge on the MLA means that the zipper lane will no longer be
needed. Thus, PB added the 2-lane MLA and deleted the HOV zipper lane, thereby reducing the
two-lane gain to a single lane gain.
Second, this policy greatly increases the costs of policing the MLA as staff attempt to determine
whether or not autos have the requisite number of automobile occupants. On the other hand, pre-
registered buses and vanpools would be outfitted with transponders signifying their legitimacy and
will take little policing.
Third, this policy reduces the revenues available to fund the project, thus necessitating a tax
increase.

Insufficient ingress/egress options provided for MLA
The rail transit alternative in the AA presently has five different alignment options that have
survived the process to date. The reversible MLA, on the other hand, has only one.
PB should have also examined five options for the MLA alternative. They should have considered
the three-lane option as built by the Tampa Expressway since it offers a 50 percent greater lane
capacity at only a 20 percent increase in cost. They should also have considered both two and three
lane options in combination with more options for ingress/egress along the lines suggested by Dr.
Prevedouros.6

MLA should never be at Level of Service (LOS) D
For some reason PB is showing the MLA option operating at LOS B to D in the morning peak
hour. Since dynamically priced MLAs are operated to keep them congestion free, we do not
understand why they should not be LOS B, or better, at all times.

FTA funding will likely be allowed
PB says that the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) New Starts funds cannot be used for the
MLA Alternative (AA, p. 6-10). However, the FTA has been revising its policies on MLAs such as
the recent one allowing funding for HOT lane conversions from existing HOV lanes. While FTA’s
policy still holds that HOT lanes built de novo cannot be funded with New Starts funds, it places
the policy in conflict with recent changes in FTA policy favoring variably-priced lanes.
One might reasonably expect that an MLA that met certain conditions, such as giving buses and
other high occupancy vehicles priority over automobiles, would, in time, be eligible for New Starts
Funds and therefore should be studied further in the Environmental Impact Statement process.

PB has under-engineered the MLA
Professor Prevdouros examined the MLA from an engineering perspective and submitted his report
to the Transit Advisory Task Force. He finds PB’s treatment of the MLA significantly lacking and
concludes,
      “Based on substantial evidence of ML being under-engineered, its performance statistics of are not
      representative of what a new 2-lane reversible expressway can do for this corridor … In short, the ML
      provides extensive regional traffic management possibilities, none of which were explored.” 7




6
    A Design for a HOT Expressway and Other Traffic Relief Projects for Oahu,
7
    Attached to covering email as Panos_TATF_final_report.doc


                                                    Page A-49
                                                                                                           Page 5


FTA gives no weight to traffic congestion reduction
      “… in current evaluations of proposed New Starts projects, FTA considers directly only those user
      benefits derived directly from changes in transit service characteristics.”8
At the Pearl Ridge screenline, the only freeway is H-1 and for the peak period inbound provides
five regular lanes, a zipper lane and an HOV lane.
A properly defined MLA would provide an additional two lanes to the above. More importantly, it
would be the equivalent of four new lanes since the MLA is a more efficient conveyer of vehicles.
As shown in the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) Congestion Primer,9
      Vehicle “throughput” on a freeway is the number of vehicles that get through over a short period such
      as an hour ... The number of vehicles that get through per hour can drop by as much as 50 percent
      when severe congestion sets in … each variably priced lane in the median of State Route 91 in Orange
      County, California, carries twice as many vehicles per lane as the free lanes during the hour with
      heaviest traffic. Pricing has allowed twice as many vehicles to be served per lane at three to four times
      the speed on the free lanes.
Therefore the two lanes of the MLA would take the equivalent of four lanes of traffic off of the H-1
freeway, providing significant traffic relief in the Corridor.
We do not understand why this is not being taken into account by FTA. In announcing a war on
traffic congestion as the new policy, Secretary Mineta announced that,
       Transportation congestion is not a fact of life. It is not a scientific mystery, an uncontrollable force, or
      the insurmountable fate of the American people. Rather, congestion results from poor policy choices
      and a failure to separate and embrace solutions that are effective from those that are not.
He concluded the policy announcement by declaring that,
      The Administration’s objective must be to reduce congestion, not simply to slow its increase.
      Congestion is not an insurmountable problem … The Federal Government’s most important role is to
      establish mechanisms to ensure that the right investments get made … We must end the era of
      complacency about congestion. The National Strategy to Reduce Congestion on America’s
      Transportation Network provides the framework for government officials, the private sector, and
      most importantly, the citizen-user, to take the necessary steps to make today’s congestion a thing of
      the past. (original emphasis)
Furthermore, SAFETEA-LU states that, “… the Secretary shall analyze, evaluate, and consider …
factors such as … congestion relief.”
Is this policy meaningless? Does it only impact the Secretary’s office and have no meaning to
FTA?
Traffic congestion reduction is critically important to Oahu citizens and the bias shown by the AA
against the MLA needs to be addressed.
For example, Professor Prevedouros states that simply using the AA, table 3-5, AM inbound, as the
basis for calculations, and a) allowing for a three-lane variant of the MLA, and b) reinstating the
zipper lane, that far lower congestion would exist on the H-1 regular lanes in 2030 than existed for
actual conditions in 2003 even given the AA’s highly questionable population forecasts.




8
    http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/Discussion_1_CE_Allowances.doc
9
    US DOT Congestion Primer


                                                   Page A-50
                                                                                          Page 6


Summary:
The foregoing are the most important points about the bias exhibited towards the MLA by the City
and PB, its “client-focused” consultant.
A disinterested reviewer could only conclude that, at the hands of the City and PB, the MLA has
not been accorded fair treatment and that the MLA should be reinstated into the Scoping process —
preferably with the MLA study being performed by another, more taxpayer-focused consultant.

Sincerely,
HONOLULUTRAFFIC.COM




Cliff Slater, Chair

Atts:
cc: Mr. Tyler Duvall
    Mr. David Horner
    Mr. Ron Fisher
    Mr. James Ryan
    Mr. Ray Sukys
    Mr. Melvin Kaku




                                            Page A-51
Seeking cost-effective ways to improve traffic congestion in Honolulu



January 9, 2006


Acting Director Alfred Tanaka
Department of Transportation Services
City and County of Honolulu
650 S. King Street, 3rd Floor
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813

Dear Mr. Tanaka:

                    Comments on the December 2005 Scoping Meetings

The Scoping Meeting conducted by Parsons Brinckerhoff and the City and County
of Honolulu Department of Transportation Services (DTS) on December 13, 2005,
provided insufficient information, both at the meeting and at the
www.honolulutransit.com website, for the public to understand the cost-effectiveness
of the alternatives.
While Parsons Brinckerhoff and DTS showed that the “Development of Initial Set of
Alternatives” emerged from “Technical Methods” and “Evaluation Measures,” i they
refused to disclose the quantitative data that they developed during this process thus
denying full public access to key decisions.
For significant public involvement as specified by the Federal Transit Administration
(FTA), the public must have some rudimentary understanding of the costs and
benefits of each of the alternatives considered — both those accepted and those
rejected.
The costs must include capital and operating costs. The benefits and disbenefits must
include forecast travel time changes, patronage and traffic congestion impacts. Only
with this information can the public be truly involved in the process.
In short, the ‘system planning’ process has failed to follow the FTA process, as
follows:
   A. The projected capital costs, operating costs, financing, travel times, patronage
      and traffic congestion for the alternatives have not been available.
   B. The process has failed to define adequately the specific transportation
      problems let alone evaluate how each alternative addresses them.
   C. The level of effort exerted in developing the alternatives has been
      insufficient.
   D. The public has not been involved to the extent required by the FTA.


3105 Pacific Heights Rd Honolulu Hawaii 96813 Ph: 808-285-7799 email: info@honolulutraffic.com
                                          Page A-52
                                                                                              page 2


A.     The projected cost effectiveness data have not been available to the public.
       “During systems planning, the analysis of alternatives focuses on identifying fatal flaws and
       a preliminary analysis of cost-effectiveness … Three types of information are particularly
       important for evaluating cost-effectiveness: transit patronage, capital cost, and operating and
       maintenance cost.” Procedures and Technical Methods for Transit Project Planning
       (PTMTPP). Part I. p. 2-9. (emphasis added)
       “When local officials seek [FTA] approval to initiate alternatives analysis, the results of
       system planning studies are used by [FTA] to decide whether to participate in further detailed
       study of guideway alternatives in the corridor. Much of the information needed to make these
       decisions should be available in reports produced during the system planning phase.”
       PTMTPP, Part I, p. 2-12. (emphasis added)
       “These definitions [of alternatives] are sufficient to address such general concerns as ranges
       of costs, ridership potential and financial feasibility. More basically, they provide the
       information necessary for decisionmakers and other stakeholders to confirm that no
       reasonable alternative (in terms of meeting corridor needs) is being excluded from the
       analysis, as well as understand the magnitude of the costs and benefits associated with the
       various options for improving conditions in the corridor.” Additional Guidance on Local
       Initiation of Alternatives Analysis Planning Studies (emphasis added)
The documentation required in the ‘systems planning’ ii process concerning public
transit patronage data, capital cost and operating and maintenance costs, as required
by the FTA has been either withheld from the public or not developed at all.
During the Scoping Meeting, we asked Mr. Hamayasu for cost data for the
alternatives and he told us that the City did not have any. Since cost estimates are at
the bedrock of scoping decisions it seemed strange that they were not available. This
was especially true since Parsons Brinckerhoff had eliminated the reversible High-
Occupancy\Toll (HOT) lanes proposal on the grounds of “cost and funding
concerns.” iii
Subsequent to the Scoping Meeting, Mr. Gordon Lum, Executive Director of the
Oahu Metropolitan Planning Organization (OMPO) told us that the capital costs
developed by their consultant were $2.5 billion each for both the reversible HOT
lanes proposal, from Waipahu to the Keehi Interchange (±12 miles), and also the
elevated heavy rail line from Kapolei to the University of Hawaii (UH) (±25 miles).
We asked to see the working for those calculations but Mr. Lum told us that their
consultants, Kaku Associates, had only given them the number; there was no backup
for it. He also said OMPO subsequently conveyed these projected costs to both DTS
and the Hawaii State Department of Transportation (HDOT) and both had found
them reasonable.
Failing any other explanation, we have to assume that Parsons Brinckerhoff and DTS
used the OMPO costs in eliminating the reversible HOT lanes from the Alternatives
Analysis.
The capital costs cited by OMPO are unreasonable. These costs, on a per mile basis,
amount to $100 million per mile for the heavy rail line and $200 million per mile for
the HOT lanes.




                                             Page A-53
                                                                                            page 3


OMPO, HDOT, DTS and Parsons Brinckerhoff, would have us believe that a simple
elevated two-lane highway (HOT lanes is merely the operating method) put out to
bid would cost twice as much as a non-bid heavy rail line with all its attendant
equipment, rolling stock, trains, and massive stations each with escalators, elevators,
and stairs.
The Tampa, Florida, three-lane elevated highway due to open shortly costs $46
million per mile and that includes an expensive error by a contractor. The public
authority responsible for it estimates they could duplicate it for $28 million per
mile. iv Even allowing for Hawaii’s politically induced high costs that tend to double
Mainland prices, it still does not come close to the OMPO estimate of $200 million
per mile.
No travel time comparisons are available. Since travel time is a major determinant of
patronage forecasts and since HOT lanes may well offer a much faster journey for
both autos and buses this information should have been available.
Patronage forecasts for the various alternatives are not available. Mr. Hamayasu told
us during the meeting that while OMPO had developed ridership data for the rail,
they had not shared it with DTS. We find this troubling since Mr. Hamayasu is Vice-
Chair of OMPO’s Technical Advisory Committee (TAC).
OMPO told us that while they had developed ridership forecasts for the various
alternatives they would not show us the working of the calculations. We appealed
this refusal to the Hawaii Office of Information Practices and OMPO now admits
that their consultant’s forecasts were “intuitive” and therefore there was no working
paper to show us. v
We had asked for the working paper since the 360,000± daily rail ridership shown on
their Strategic Planning Concepts chart (p. 6) for the Kapolei to University of Hawaii
(UH) rail alternative would be an 80 percent increase over current ridership and a 50
percent increase in per capita ridership by 2030.
No Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) that has built a rail line in modern times has
experienced an increase in the percentage of commuters using public transportation
in a similar 20-year period, 1980-2000. vi We, therefore, find the ridership forecast
preposterous failing a detailed, and credible, explanation.
The financing plan is not available.
       “The system planning phase produces a considerable amount of information that will later be
       used in alternatives analysis. This includes … An analysis of the region’s financial capacity
       to provide planned improvements … and the capacity of the existing revenue base to meet
       future transit financial requirements.” PTMTTP, Part I, page 2-2.
       “It is important that system planning consider such questions … ‘When compared with lower
       cost alternatives, are the added benefits of the project greater than the added costs?’”
       PTMTTP, Part I, page 2-5.
How can this question possibly be answered without quantifying the costs and
benefits?




                                            Page A-54
                                                                                                 page 4


The financing plan needs to show the impacts of the one-half percent General Excise
tax increase. Mayor Hanneman had originally asked for a full one percent when he
was advocating the $2.7 billion Kapolei to Iwilei line. vii Since then his plan has
extended to UH and Waikiki but the state legislature cut the tax increase in half. This
would only fund a third of the heavy rail alternative; the public needs to know the
correct amount of the future taxes they will face.
Traffic congestion estimates are not available. Since HOT lanes promise to move far
more cars off the Oahu’s highways than would a rail line, it is imperative that the
city make the preliminary estimates available to the public.
Funding problems insufficiently explained. Mr. Hamayasu told us that one of the
reasons the reversible HOT lanes was eliminated was because of “funding concerns”
and that was because FTA had told him that they would not fund HOT lanes. We
asked him if he had such an opinion in writing and he said he had not. Since FTA
officials have told us that, while they would have to see the precise plans for such a
HOT lanes project, if it provided priority and uncongested travel for buses, they
believed they would.
In any case, the FTA does not require that funding be in place in order to analyze the
alternatives. If it did, it would have to reject the rail alternatives since the half-
percent increase in the State General Excise Tax does not begin to cover the capital
and operating costs. In addition, the 1992 Rail Plan had no funding in place at any
time during the whole process.
B. The process has failed to define adequately the specific transportation problems
let alone evaluate how each alternative addresses them.
       “I. 2. Systems Planning. … sets a proper foundation for moving forward into alternatives
       analysis … system planning serves as the first phase of the five-phased process for
       developing fixed guideway mass transit projects.” PTMTTP, Part I, page 2-1.
       “This analysis includes the identification of specific transportation problems in the corridor;
       the definition of reasonable alternative strategies to address these problems; the development
       of forecasts for these alternatives in terms of environmental, transportation, and financial
       impacts; and an evaluation of how each alternative addresses transportation problems, goals,
       and objectives in the corridor.” PTMTTP, Part I, 1.2.
       “The key principal in the identification of alternatives is that they directly address the stated
       transportation problem in the corridor ...” PTMTPP, Part II. 2. p. 3.
The scoping information package merely discusses “improved person-mobility” and
“improved mobility for travelers facing increasingly severe traffic congestion.” viii
This is misleading information to give to the public. It implies that the process is
about reducing traffic congestion when it is clear — with some careful reading —
that it is about getting people out of cars and into public transportation. However,
Parsons Brinckerhoff does not tell the public that that is their explicit purpose.
Neither do they tell the public that no other MSA has managed to reduce the market
share of commuters using automobiles. ix
If the transportation problem is defined as one of insufficient “person mobility” then
one set of alternatives may be preferable, usually centered on public transportation.
If on the other hand, Parsons Brinckerhoff were to define the problem as the public


                                              Page A-55
                                                                                             page 5


understands it, “excessive traffic congestion hampering the movement of autos and
goods vehicles,” then another set of alternatives will be preferred, centering around
highways.
If we had a public transportation problem, we would not have had a significant
decline in the per capita use of it during the past 20 years — from 96 rides per capita
of population to 77 just before the strike. To make it worse this 20 percent decline
occurred during a period when we increased the bus fleet by 20 percent. (State Data
Books 1991 & 2004)
Conversely, during this same period, Oahu has had a 27 percent increase in
registered vehicles with an increase of only a minuscule 2.2 miles of new freeways,
from 86.3 to 88.5 miles — a 2.7 percent increase. (State Data Books 1991 & 2004.)
Hawaii has the fewest urban miles of highway of any state in the U.S. because
highway construction has not kept pace with residential growth. No Metropolitan
Statistical Area (metro area) in the U.S. has reduced traffic congestion by improving
public transportation. We can only reduce it by increasing highway facilities and
improving highway management and the Texas Transportation Institute concurs in
that as follows:
       “The difference between lane-mile increases and traffic growth compares the change in
       supply and demand. If roadway capacity has been added at the same rate as travel, the deficit
       will be zero.” 2005 Urban Mobility Report. Texas Transportation Institute.
In addition, Parsons Brinckerhoff has not addressed the negative effects on our
economy of the high cost of delivering goods on congested highways. They have
ignored national, state and city formal transportation goals as follows:
       “Advance accessible, efficient, intermodal transportation for the movement of people and
       goods.” Federal Transportation Policy.
       “To create a transportation system which will enable people and goods to move safely,
       efficiently, and at reasonable cost.” City and County of Honolulu, General Plan for the City
       and County of Honolulu
       “To provide for the safe, economic, efficient, and convenient movement of people and
       goods.” State of Hawaii, Hawaii State Plan
Rail transit does absolutely nothing for the movement of goods “safely, efficiently,
and at reasonable cost.” Parsons Brinckerhoff has entirely overlooked that goods
move by roads on Oahu, while admitting — only when asked — that building a rail
line will not reduce traffic congestion. x
This community needs a definition of the transportation problem with which
everyone can agree and that is without doubt going to be ‘traffic congestion.’
Honolulu does not have a public transportation problem; it has a traffic congestion
problem. This is the problem that Parsons Brinckerhoff and DTS need to address.




                                            Page A-56
                                                                                              page 6


C.     The alternatives are inadequate and the “level of effort” exerted in developing
them insufficient.
                         “There's small choice in rotten apples.”
This line from Shakespeare’s The Taming of the Shrew is, appropriately, the opening
line in the FTA’s introduction to Evaluation of the Alternatives. xi
Each prior rail transit effort in Honolulu from the 1970s on has suffered from the
same problem; the range of alternatives studied was inadequate and deliberately so.
Disinterested experts have all commented on it.
       "Finally, the most serious deficiency of analyses done to date is the failure to devise and
       evaluate meaningful alternatives to HART. The so-called "alternatives analysis" is seriously
       deficient and the bus alternative considered in them can only be considered as "straw men."
       Dr. John Kain, Chair of Harvard’s Economics Department. 1978. xii
       "In particular, what is lacking is a serious investigation of several viable dedicated busway
       options." Dr. Robert Cervero, Professor of Urban and Regional Planning, UC-Berkeley.
       1991. xiii
Many more examples are available from experts’ critiques of the 1990 Alternatives
Analysis both on line and at the Honolulu Municipal Library. xiv
The reversible two-lane HOT lanes should be reinstated as an alternative.
Our proposal is for a two-lane reversible, elevated HOT lane highway between the
H1/H2 merge near Waikele and Pier 16 near Hilo Hatties. This kind of HOT lanes
approach has also been termed Virtual Exclusive Busway (VEB) and Bus/Rapid
Transit. HOT lanes projects already in place elsewhere have demonstrated the
viability of such an alternative. xv
During the 2002 Governor’s Conference on Transitways, Mr. Mike Schneider,
executive vice-president of Parsons Brinckerhoff, told the conference that the
reversible tollway proposal giving buses and vanpools priority at no charge was the
way the city should have planned its now defunct bus/rapid transit (BRT) program.
Interestingly, a month prior to the conference, Parsons Brinckerhoff prepared and
released the state final environmental impact statement for the BRT declaring that:
       “The light rail transit alternative was dropped because subsequent analyses revealed that
       Bus/Rapid Transit using electric-powered vehicles could accomplish virtually all of the
       objectives of light rail transit at substantially less cost.” xvi
On the HOT lanes, buses and vanpools would have priority and travel free, other
vehicles would pay a toll that would be collected electronically by way of a pre-paid
smart card, as is quite commonplace on the mainland today.
As on the San Diego I-15 HOT lanes, computers would dynamically calculate the
toll price every few minutes to keep the lanes full, but free flowing.
One of the more surprising outcomes of implementing HOT lanes has been that they
are popular with motorists across all income groups. Even those who use them
rarely, still favor them because it is an option they can use when the need warrants
it. xvii



                                             Page A-57
                                                                               page 7


A single highway lane with free-flowing non-stop traffic carries up to 2,000 vehicles
per hour and with two lanes that means removing 4,000 vehicles from the existing
freeway, or 25 percent of the current rush hour traffic using that corridor.




Our projection of the HOT lanes traffic of around 4,000 vehicles does not have to be
calculated since we know that rush-hour highways are always fully used; it is only
the toll price that that needs to be forecast.
Judging from San Diego’s I-15 and Orange County’s SR-91, the average cost will be
about $4.50 under normal circumstances and up to $7.75 for special periods such as
Friday evenings. xviii
HOT lanes may well offer a much faster journey for buses in comparison to trains.
The total trip from Mililani to UH is an example:
   •   Neither the rail line nor the HOT lanes will be going to Mililani, and so from
       Mililani to the H1/H2 merge, both rail and HOT lanes alternatives will take
       the same time by bus. At the H1/H2 merge, the train option would always
       require a transfer whereas the buses on HOT lanes may not.
   •   Buses on the 10-12 miles of HOT lanes traveling at 55-60 mph (SkyBuses?)
       to Pier 16 will take half as much time as trains on the heavy rail line.
   •   Pier 16 to UH is 4.2 miles and we anticipate that trains would take half as
       much time as buses for this much shorter distance.


                                      Page A-58
                                                                                             page 8


However, the time savings for the buses on HOT lanes will not be offset by the time
lost by the bus alternative on the shorter in-town leg. The net result of the time taken
for these two journeys would be that HOT lanes would still offer a faster journey
than trains and, in addition, not mar the city’s residential areas with an overhead rail
line.
The major advantages of HOT lanes are:
   •   Traffic can travel at uncongested freeway speeds of 60mph whereas rail
       transit can only average 22.5 mph because of stops averaging every half
       mile. xix
   •   Buses on HOT lanes may travel door-to-door whereas rail nearly always
       requires transfers.
   •   HOT lanes offer both motorists and bus riders a choice of avoiding traffic
       congestion.
   •   The regular freeways will still be available and with less congestion than
       before since some 4,000 cars per hour will have been removed from them.
   •   Express buses using the HOT lanes can return on the far less congested
       regular freeway in the opposite direction and the HOT lane speed will enable
       buses to make two trips in the time it now takes to make one.
Options for the HOT lanes proposal that need further study are:
   •   The feasibility of a three-lane section from the H1/H2 merge to the Pearl
       Harbor area and then continuing on to Pier 16 as two lanes. This could
       service the considerable traffic that terminates at Pearl Harbor, Honolulu
       Airport, the Airport Industrial area, and the Mapunapuna industrial area. The
       three-lane version could still be of pedestal construction similar to the new
       Tampa, Florida, Expressway.
   •   The utility of extending the Ewa end of the HOT lanes further beyond the
       H1/H2 merge.
Most importantly, HOT lanes meet the requirements needed to maximize public
transportation use explained by Dr. Melvin Webber, now Emeritus Professor of
Urban Planning, UC-Berkeley in Honolulu 20 years ago,
       "Commuters choose among available transport modes mostly on the basis of comparative
       money costs and time costs of the total commute trip, door-to-door. Other attributes, such as
       comfort and privacy, are trivial as compared with expenditures of dollars and minutes.
       Commuters charge up the time spent in waiting for and getting into a vehicle at several times
       the rate they apply to travel inside a moving vehicle. This means that the closer a vehicle
       comes to both a commuter's house and workplace, the more likely he is to use that vehicle
       rather than some other. It also means that the fewer the number of transfers between vehicles,
       the better" xx
As we have detailed in this letter, the level of effort in data development so far has
been insufficient to justify the elimination of the HOT lanes alternative.




                                            Page A-59
                                                                                               page 9


       “The system planning effort should recognize the difference between the foregoing of
       precision and the sacrifice of accuracy in the technical work, so that estimates of costs and
       impacts, while coarse, are at least approximate indicators of the potential merits of the
       alternatives. The level of effort must be designed so that additional effort would not result in
       the choice of a different preferred alternative.” PTMTPP, Part II, 2.2, p. 2. [emphasis added]
Parsons Brinckerhoff has substituted, in place of the reversible HOT lanes, a
Managed Lanes Alternative, a two-lane elevated highway with one lane in each
direction. This has been designed to fail the alternatives analysis process. As U-C
Berkeley’s Professor Robert Cervero said of the 1992 choice of rail, “it is less a
reflection on the work of [Parsons Brinckerhoff] and more an outcome of pressures
exerted by various political and special interest groups.” xxi
This Managed Lane Alternative, for which there appears to be no precedent, is a
“straw man” designed to make the rail transit line look good in comparison.
Professor Kain has written extensively about such tactics, “Nearly all, if not all,
assessments of rail transit systems have used costly and poorly designed all-bus
alternatives to make the proposed rail systems appear better than they are.” xxii
Instead, we believe that the new high-tech HOT lanes have shown such promise and
such public — though not political — acceptance that they may be a far preferable
alternative.
D.     The public has not been involved to the extent required by FTA.
       “The goal of this [joint FTA/FHWA] policy statement is to aggressively support proactive
       public involvement at all stages of planning and project development. State departments of
       transportation, metropolitan planning organizations, and transportation providers are required
       to develop, with the public, effective involvement processes which are tailored to local
       conditions. The performance standards for these proactive public involvement processes
       include early and continuous involvement; reasonable public availability of technical and
       other information; collaborative input on alternatives, evaluation criteria and mitigation
       needs; open public meetings where matters related to Federal-aid highway and transit
       programs are being considered; and open access to the decision-making process prior to
       closure.” (emphasis added)
       http://www.fta.dot.gov/grant_programs/transportation_planning/planning_environment/3854
       _8227_ENG_HTML.htm
       “The overall objective of an area's public involvement process is that it be proactive, provide
       complete information, timely public notice, full public access to key decisions, and
       opportunities for early and continuing involvement (23CFR450.212(a) and 450.316(b)(1)).”
       (emphasis added) http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/pub_inv/q2.htm
Clearly, as can be seen from the foregoing, our state and local agencies have
hindered the public from getting access to information let alone granting “full public
access to key decisions.”
Further, the agencies are abetted in their endeavors by the ‘strategic
misrepresentations’ of our local and federal elected officials.
Far from “aggressively supporting proactive public involvement,” our elected
officials, who are part of the process, have acted contrary to FTA policy by
misleading the public about the prospects for rail transit in that:



                                             Page A-60
                                                                                            page 10


    •   They continually allude to the idea that building rail transit will result in
        traffic congestion relief when even Parsons Brinckerhoff xxiii says it will not
        affect traffic congestion in addition to there being no evidence from any other
        metro area that such is the case. xxiv
    •   They relentlessly use the term ‘light’ rail when, in reality, they are pushing a
        ‘heavy’ rail line. xxv
    •   They imply that the half-percent increase in the county General Excise Tax
        will be sufficient to pay for rail. xxvi
The public frustration with the lack of information was evident from the coverage of
the scoping meetings by our newspapers. As the head of the Outdoor Circle’s
environmental committee said, “It seems to have been designed in a way to limit
public interaction” xxvii
The net result of Parsons Brinckerhoff and DTS’s outreach efforts is that the public
believes that a rail transit line will significantly reduce traffic congestion and that it
will only cost a half per cent increase in the GE tax. Neither the City nor DTS have
made any effort to dispel these myths.
Summary:
The culmination of the current process will be a request by DTS to advance into
alternatives analysis. FTA then “reviews this request and supporting technical
documentation to determine whether system planning requirements have been met
and that the threshold criteria for initiating alternatives analysis have been satisfied.”
(PTMTTP, Part I, page 2-12.)
Clearly, on the four counts enumerated here, the process is grossly flawed:
    •   Little, if any, quantitative information has been developed, let alone given to
        the public.
    •   The transportation problem is inadequately defined and there has been no
        evaluation of how the alternatives address specific transportation problems.
    •   The alternatives are insufficient and Parsons Brinckerhoff’s decision prior to
        the Scoping Meeting to eliminate the reversible HOT lanes alternative was
        completely unjustified. They made this decision without any disclosure of the
        impacts of HOT lanes on traffic congestion, patronage, cost, or any other
        quantitative details that would allow the public to understand the decision.
        Nor did Parsons Brinckerhoff explain the selection criteria used in
        eliminating HOT lanes — let alone the weighting of the criteria in the scoring
        process.
    •   The process so far makes a mockery of “public involvement” as spelled out
        in FTA guidance and as defined in the preamble to Hawaii’s Uniform
        Information Practices Act:
        [§92F-2] Purposes; rules of construction. In a democracy, the people are vested with the
        ultimate decision-making power. Government agencies exist to aid the people in the
        formation and conduct of public policy. Opening up the government processes to public



                                             Page A-61
                                                                                                  page 11


        scrutiny and participation is the only viable and reasonable method of protecting the public's
        interest. Therefore the legislature declares that it is the policy of this State that the formation
        and conduct of public policy—the discussions, deliberations, decisions, and action of
        government agencies—shall be conducted as openly as possible.
Accordingly, we believe that Parsons Brinckerhoff, OMPO, and DTS should revisit
the process leading up to the Scoping Meeting and redevelop the alternatives
according to FTA rules and guidance. Only then can our community have a Scoping
Meeting in which the public will be involved according to both the letter and spirit of
the law.
Sincerely,
HONOLULUTRAFFIC.COM




Cliff Slater
Chair
cc: Ms. Donna Turchie, Region IX, Federal Transit Administration
    Mr. Toru Hamayasu, Chief Planner, Honolulu DTS


Endnotes:
i
      Scoping Meeting, page 4.3.
ii    “1.2.1 Systems Planning. Systems planning refers to the continuing, comprehensive, and
      coordinated transportation planning process carried out by metropolitan planning organizations
      - in cooperation with state Departments of Transportation, local transit operators, and affected
      local governments - in urbanized areas throughout the country. This planning process results in
      the development of long range multimodal transportation plans and short term improvement
      programs, as well as a number of other transportation and air quality analyses.” Procedures
      and Technical Methods for Transit Project Planning (PTMTPP), Part I, 1.”
iii   Scoping Information package. December 5, 2005. page 3-1.
iv    According to Braden Smith, CFO of Tampa-Hillsborough Expressway Authority (813) 272-
      6740 the Tampa cost should have been $28 million a mile for the three-lane elevated highway
      and not the $46 million a mile it is costing. An expensive error made by wrong assumptions
      about the soil substrate by the designer caused the cost overrun.
v     Letter from the Office of Information Practices to Slater and Lum.
vi    http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ctpp/jtw/contents.htm
vii
      http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2005/Aug/22/ln/FP508220329.html
      http://www.co.honolulu.hi.us/nco/nb18/05/18marmin.htm
      http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2003/Oct/28/ln/ln03a.html
      http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2005/Mar/22/ln/ln20p.html
      http://starbulletin.com/2003/10/28/news/story2.html




                                                Page A-62
                                                                                              page 12



viii
        http://www.honolulutransit.org/pdfs/scoping_info.pdf
ix
        http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ctpp/jtw/contents.htm
x       Honolulu Advertiser article, December 14, 2005.
xi
        PTMTPP, Part II, Sec. 9.
xii     Seminar on Urban Mass Transit (transcript). Office of the Legislative Auditor, State of
        Hawaii. January 1978. Dr. John Kain, Chairman, Dept. of City and Regional Planning,
        Harvard University.
xiii    Quoted from “An Evaluation of the Honolulu Rapid Transit Development Project's Alternative
        Analysis and Draft Environmental Impact Statement.” Hawaii Office of State Planning and
        University of Hawaii. May 1990. Robert Cervero, Professor of Urban and Regional Planning at
        the University of California, Berkeley, and a member of the Editorial Board, Journal of the
        American Planning Association.
xiv     An Evaluation of the Honolulu Rapid Transit Development Project's Alternative Analysis and
        Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Hawaii Office of State Planning and University of
        Hawaii.May 1990.
xv      http://www.hhh.umn.edu/centers/slp/projects/conpric/index.htm
xvi     State FEIS for the Bus/Rapid Transit Program, November 2002. Prepared by Parsons
        Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas. p. 2-4.
xvii    http://www.honolulutraffic.com/lexuslane.htm
xviii Orange County’s SR-91 lanes are not dynamically priced as are those of the San Diego I-15.
      However, the SR-91 administrators try to emulate dynamic pricing with fixed prices which
      allows us to examine what Hawaii prices might look like by time of day.
      http://www.91expresslanes.com/tollschedules.asp
xix
        http://www.honolulutraffic.com/railspeed.pdf
xx      Dr. Melvin Webber, UC Berkeley. Address to the Governor's Conference on Videotex,
        Transportation and Energy Conservation. Hawaii State Dept. of Planning and Economic
        Development. July 1984.
xxi     “An Evaluation of the Honolulu Rapid Transit Development Project's Alternative Analysis and
        Draft Environmental Impact Statement.” Hawaii Office of State Planning and University of
        Hawaii. May 1990.
xxii    Kain, John F. “The Use of Straw Men in the Economic Evaluation of Rail Transport Projects.”
        American Economic Review, Vol. 82, No. 2, Papers and Proceedings of the Hundred and
        Fourth Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association (May, 1992) , pp. 487-493.
xxiii
        http://starbulletin.com/2005/12/14/news/story02.html
        http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2005/Dec/14/ln/FP512140342.html
xxiv This video of, Mayor Hanneman and Rep. Neil Abercrombie’s city hall “Traffic sucks!” rally
     held on December 5th, 2005, typifies the grossly misleading statements emanating from our
     elected officials.
     http://mfile.akamai.com/12891/wmv/vod.ibsys.com/2005/0707/4695365.200k.asx
        “Judging by how much traffic has worsened in just in the past few years, that's probably a
        conservative prediction. The only way to prevent it is to act now to address the problem. Our




                                               Page A-63
                                                                                                page 13



      quality of life is at stake. Rail transit is a key element in the solution.” Congressman Neil
      Abercrombie. Honolulu Advertiser. April 17, 2005
      “Hannemann said the yet-to-be-determined form of transit would run from Kapolei to
      downtown and the University of Hawai'i-Manoa. He said the system will help all parts of the
      island, easing traffic overall because ‘there'll be less cars on the road.’”
      http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2005/May/12/ln/ln02p.html
      Mayor’s Press Secretary: “Slater misrepresents just about everything Mayor Mufi Hannemann,
      Transportation Services Director Ed Hirata and other supporters of transit have said, from the
      timing of federal requirements to tax calculations, highway capacity and a rail system's
      potential to ease traffic congestion.”
      http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2005/Aug/10/op/508100321.html
      Transcript of Councilmember Barbara Marshall questioning U.S. Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-
      Hawaii) http://hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?696a58e3-9a81-411e-b977-2688f5595685
      “Mayor Mufi Hannemann chided Lingle at the rally and said the city needs a rail system to
      alleviate increasing traffic congestion. U.S. Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, also blasted a
      possible veto and said that he and the rest of Hawaii have had enough of the traffic problems.
      He said commuters are fed up and don't need anymore "Lingle lanes" filled with traffic
      congestion.” http://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/stories/2005/07/04/daily18.html?t=printable
xxv   DTS and elected officials continually refer to “light rail” despite constant criticism from us and
      others.
xxvi Half per cent will pay for about one-third of the projected rail line according to our
     calculations. Mayor Hanneman originally asked for a full one percent at a time when he was
     seeking a shorter $2.7 billion line from Kapolei to Iwilei. Now he plans extending it to UH and
     Waikiki and the tax increase has been reduced to a half of one percent.
xxvii http://starbulletin.com/2005/12/14/news/story02.html
      http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2005/Dec/14/ln/FP512140342.html




                                               Page A-64
                   TRANSIT ADVISORY TASK FORCE
                                    do Honolulu City Council
                                530 S. King Street, Room 202
                                      Honolulu, HI 96819
                                      Phone: (808)523-4139


           Report of the Transit Task Force Technical Review Subcommittee

                                      Construction Cost

The purpose of this report is to:

    1. Determine if the estimated costs for the construction of the Managed Lane and
       Fixed Guideway Alternatives in the Alternatives Analysis Report for the Honolulu
       High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project are reasonable for the purposes of the
       report, and
    2. Compare the estimated cost of the Managed Lane Alternative with the cost for
       the construction of the high-occupancy toll lanes on the Tampa-Hillsborough
       County Expressway.

In addition to the Alternatives Analysis Report, information was obtained from:
    1. Toru Hamayasu, Department of Transportation Services
    2. Clyde Shimizu, Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade and Douglas
    3. Martin Stone, Tampa-Hillsborough County Expressway Authority
    4. Paul Santo, Highways Division, Hawaii State DOT

Capital costs in the Alternatives Analysis Report for the construction of the Managed
Lane Alternative are estimated at $2.6 billion; capital costs of $3.6 billion are projected
for the 20-mile Alignment of the Fixed Guideway Alternative. The actual construction
cost reported for the Tampa high-occupancy toll lanes was $300 million for construction
(including both at-grade and elevated sections), plus $120 million to correct an
engineering error in the construction of foundations for some of the support piers.

Both the Managed Lane and the Fixed Guideway Alternatives estimates use the same
unit cost prices and cost calculation categories. These standardized cost categories are
prescribed by the Federal Transit Administration to facilitate review of project cost
information from all projects seeking Federal funding. The unit cost data (cost per cubic
yard of concrete, cost per ton of reinforcing steel, etc.) were obtained from the most
recent large-scale construction projects on Oahu, such as the construction of the
Waimalu section of the H-i highway viaduct widening, completed last year. DTS’
consultants, Parsons Brinckerhoff, also made use of the U.S. Navycs unit cost
construction cost data for Hawaii. Labor and other costs from the H-i Waimalu Viaduct
project were also used as inputs for Alternatives cost estimates. The cost per square
foot of the Waimalu Viaduct, about $500 per square foot, was considered but not relied
on because this work involved widening an existing elevated highway structure, which is
known to be more expensive than new construction. The Alternatives Analysis data


                                            Page A-65
                                              A-19
Report of the Transit Task Force Technical Review Subcommittee
December 11,2006
Page 2 of 4


yield an estimated cost to construct elevated highway structures on Oahu at $330 per
square foot, and $390 per square foot in urban areas.

Construction costs for the elevated guideway needed for the Managed Lane Alternative
were calculated on the same basis as the construction costs for the guideway structure
for the Fixed Guideway Alternative. Both Alternatives are designed to meet AASHTO
design standards for elevated highway structures, as was the Tampa tollway. -As
previously stated, costs for both Alternatives were calculated using the same per-unit
cost elements (for concrete, steel, labor, etc.). Because the elevated structure for the
Managed Lane Alternative would be 36 feet wide for its two travel lanes, whereas the
structure for the fixed guideway would be only 26 feet wide, different diameter piers are
necessary for each (8 feet versus 6 feet in diameter). However, where the managed
lanes require only a single lane (e.g., an access/exit ramp), a 6 foot diameter support
pier would be used, similar to and costing the same as the piers used for the fixed
guideway. The span length between piers is 120 feet for both alternatives’ structures.
Portions of the structure for the fixed guideway will be significantly taller, 90 feet tall in
some places, than the Managed Lane structure.

Capital cost for the Fixed Guideway Alternative would be approximately the same as the
guideway cost for the Managed Lane if the following fixed-guideway-specific
adjustments were made: (1) Subtract vehicle costs, system infrastructure cost, cost for
downtown utilities relocation (the proposed Managed Lane Alternative does not reach
downtown, where most utilities relocation costs are incurred); (2) Adjust for construction
cost differences (e.g., structure width, different diameter piers); (3) Adjust for the Fixed
Guideway Alternative’s longer length and increased height.

Alternative lengths of the fixed guideway that could be built to fit budget limitations were
addressed with the Department of Transportations Services and its consultant. For
instance, $3 billion would build a system from UH at Manoa to Kaahumanu Street on
Kamehameha Highway; $3.2 billion dollars would reach Acacia Road at Kamehameha
Highway. If the Salt Lake Boulevard alignment were used, $3.2 billion would reach
Leeward Community College but would not reach the Navy Drum Storage Area, which
is planned for the fixed guideway storage and maintenance yard. An Ala Moana Center
to UH link is estimated to cost $540 million and Ala Moana Center to Waikiki link is $490
million. The Department of Transportation Services has not made a detailed analysis of
any Minimal Operating Segment (MOS) other than the 20-mile alignment discussed in
the Alternatives Analysis.

According to DTS, the Navy Drum Storage site is the site closest to downtown that is
feasible for the maintenance/vehicle storage yard, a necessity for a fixed guideway
system. DTS reportedly looked at other possible sites, including the former Costco site,
and rejected them because they were not large enough, or otherwise unacceptable.
The lack of a suitable yard site closer to downtown requires the fixed guideway to




                                            Page A-66
                                             A-20
Report of the Transit Task Force Technical Review Subcommittee
December ii, 2006
Page 3 of4


extend at least to the Navy Drum Storage site in the Ewa direction, thereby limiting the
length of the 20 mile alternative guideway in the Koko Head direction.

The committee suggests that DTS reconsider the use of the Costco site as a
maintenance/storage facility, at least on a temporary basis. This would avoid having the
guideway end points dictated by the storage yard consideration. If the Costco site is not
large enough by itself, perhaps the Federal Department of Defense would consider
making available DOD-owned land adjacent to the Costco site, either on a temporary or
permanent basis. Alternatively, would a smaller yard be adequate for the first years of
fixed guideway operations, perhaps making use of unused running track for vehicle
storage and limited vehicle maintenance? We understand that the Miami heavy rail
system operated without a storage/maintenance facility for the first year or so after that
system opened, and instead made use of available track for off-peak vehicle storage
and maintenance.

Testimony before the Task Force has included repeated comparison of the actual cost
to construct a three lane partially elevated toll highway in Tampa, Florida versus
projected construction costs for necessary for the Managed Lane and Fixed Guideway
Alternatives. The following comparison of the costs for the Managed Lane Alternative
and the Tampa high-occupancy toll lanes is based on information obtained from the
Department of Transportation Services, the Tampa-Hillsborough County Expressway
Authority, and the Bridge Section of the Hawaii State Highways Division. The Managed
Lane Alternative is 15.8 miles long with two lanes, built entirely on elevated structures.
The Tampa high-occupancy toll (HOT) facility is 9.4 miles long, of which 4 miles is at
grade, and approximately 5.4 miles is built on elevated structures. The Tampa HOT
has three 12-foot lanes with two 10-foot shoulders, and is approximately 59 feet wide
and was completed in 2004. The Managed Lane Alternative (assuming reversible lanes
— both lanes operating Koko Head direction in the morning rush hour, and both lanes
operating Ewa in the evening) is 36 feet wide (two 12-foot lanes, one 10-foot shoulder
and one 2-foot shoulder).

Dr. Stone recommended that the proposed Managed Lane Alternative should be
widened to three lanes based on the experience of the Tampa Expressway Authority.
Further, the lanes should be reversible to gain the advantage of all three lanes in the
heavily traveled direction during morning and evening peak hours. He further stated
that there were insufficient access/exit ramps in the Honolulu proposal and expressed
the opinion that the additional lanes and access/exit ramps would not add substantially
to the cost of the project. In his view, he felt the cost estimate in the Alternatives
Analysis was far too high.

Paul Santo stated that there is a substantial difference in cost for bridge construction
between Hawaii and the mainland US. The State DOT Bridge Section presently uses
$400 to $500 per square foot for planning purposes and expects the price will continue
to rise and approach $1000 per square foot. By comparison, he said that most highway


                                         Page A-67
                                           A-21
Report of the Transit Task Force Technical Review Subcommittee
December 11,2006
Page 4 of4


agencies on the mainland use $100 to $200 per square foot with some even below
$100. He believes the high cost in Hawaii is due to its location and the lack of
competition. For instance, there is only one precast concrete plant in Hawaii to produce
bridge girders. He understands some general contractors in Hawaii look to shipping
girders from the mainland as was done by the contractor for the Ford Island causeway
in Pearl Harbor. He further believes the cost for construction of the structures is
impacted by the additional cost of utility relocation where the alignment of the facility
follows existing rights-of-way, such as the Farrington Highway and Kamehameha
Highway corridor for both the Managed Lane and Fixed Guideway Alternatives. In
addition, construction costs are higher where work is accomplished within existing
highways with high traffic volumes whereas the Tampa HOT lanes were built within an
existing median, which appears to be nearly 30 feet wide.
Guideway construction cost estimates developed for the Alternatives Analysis are also
high compared to Tampa high-occupancy toIl lanes costs because the Alternative
Analysis’ projected costs include a 30% escalation for “soft costs” (engineering costs)
and a 25% escalation on all costs for contingencies. The Tampa HOT cost ($300
million) represents actual construction costs only (including 16% for actual engineering
costs), and was for a project that started in 2003. Clyde Shimizu pointed out that the
per square foot costs of H-3 viaducts in 1990 ($180) exceeded the Tampa tollway costs
incurred only a few years ago.

Since the Tampa tollway was built in the median of the existing expressway, there were
no rights-of-way costs incurred. Where the Fixed Guideway or Managed Lane are built
within existing State or City rights-of-way, land will be made available for the structures
at no cost to the project.

The Tampa high-occupancy toll lanes do not cover capital and operating costs through
HOT lanes tolls. Rather, the combined revenues from the expressway and the HOT
tollway are used to meet operating and capital costs. Tollway fees are expected to rise
from $1 to $1.50 next year. Bonds issued to finance construction of the original
expressway, which opened for revenue service in 1975, have now been largely paid off
or the debt refinanced, freeing up toll revenue from both the original expressway and
the HOT lanes to subsidize the HOT lanes’ construction costs.

In conclusion, the cost estimates for the Managed Lane and Fixed Guideways
Alternatives in the Alternatives Analysis Report are reasonable. Further, a valid
comparison of the costs for the Tampa tollway and the proposed Managed Lane cannot
be made without substantial adjustments for differences in construction unit costs.




                                          Page A-68
                                           A-22
From: Martin Stone, Ph.D., AICP
      Director of Planning
      Tampa-Hillsborough County Expressway Authority

To:     The Honolulu Advertiser and other interested citizens of Honolulu

Recent comments in the Honolulu Advertiser by the chief planner of Honolulu call into question
the objectivity of the City and its consultants in their performance of a very expensive
transportation alternatives evaluation being mostly paid for by the federal government.

As the public official responsible for planning Tampa’s elevated Reversible Express Lanes
project, I am astonished that a Hawaiian public official would intentionally misrepresent the
facts associated with the cost and operation of our project – and how a similar HOT lane project
might provide true congestion relief for Honolulu at an affordable price.

Two weeks ago, three Honolulu City Council members visited Tampa to see our project and learn
the truth. Not only did they view the project close up but they also had the opportunity to meet the
people who conceived, financed, designed, and constructed the project. Chairman Donovan Del
Cruz and Councilmen Todd Apo and Charles Djou all had a chance to see first-hand the realities
of our project.

First, it is completely false to suggest that our project costs “skyrocketed” to $420 million from
the original $300 million estimate. The truth is that a design error by an engineer resulted in 155
bridge foundations being constructed smaller then they should have been. It cost $120 million
extra to properly reinforce those foundations. Had the licensed engineer designed the foundations
correctly, the additional concrete and steel required during the initial construction would have
cost only a few million more than the original contract price. But, to ensure that we are open and
honest about our project, we always include the additional $120 million and the reasons for it
when we show people our price tag. And, the original cost of the elevated portion of our project
(5.5 miles long) was less than $120 million of the total project. So, even with the foundation
reinforcements, the entire elevated part of our express lanes only cost about $240 million – that’s
less than $14 million per lane mile for 27.5 lane miles of elevated concrete segmental bridge
portion of the express lanes.

Your city’s non-accredited chief planner knows this. But it seems he does not want you to know.

It is also totally false that our elevated express lanes are only handling 4,000 trips a day. The
project is actually handling three times that much even though we are not in full operation
because we are still finishing the final construction punch-list. And, we made sure to build plenty
of additional capacity to accommodate future growth (it would have been irresponsible for us not
to have planned for the future too).

Your city’s non-accredited chief planner knows this too. He just does not want you to know.

And, to say that our project is not meeting its financial obligations and we are being “heavily
subsidized by revenues from other toll roads” is simply a lie. The Tampa Hillsborough County
Expressway Authority owns only one road – and our elevated Reversible Express Lanes are part
of that road. Our agency is completely self-funded. We operate with no tax dollars. All of our
funding comes from revenue bonds and loans that are paid back by the tolls we collect from our
customers. And, no other toll road subsidizes us. Last year (our 30th year of operation), the Lee
Roy Selmon Crosstown Expressway handled more than 34 million trips with annual revenues of


                                             Page A-69
approximately $32 million. Within the past six years, the Authority refinanced all of the
expressway debt with two new series of revenue bonds to pay for the construction of the
Reversible Express Lanes project. Wall Street bond underwriters and sellers will not handle a
$400 million bond issue for an organization that cannot pay its debt. Anyone taking the time to
read the annual traffic and revenue reports published by the Expressway Authority auditors and
by the Florida Department of Transportation would know this. Under Florida’s Sunshine Law, all
of this financial information is available to anyone.

Apparently your non-accredited chief planner either didn’t do his homework or he is again
attempting to mislead you.

Actually, it’s worse that that. The intentional distortion of the financial condition of our toll road
is indicative of someone who desperately wants to manipulate public opinion in favor of a
preordained outcome. This type of dishonesty is not permitted by the canon of ethics of the
American Institute of Certified Planners, but then again, since your chief planner is not a
registered AICP member, he is not required to meet any professional planning standards of
objectivity in the public interest. However, he is a member of the American Society of Civil
Engineers (ASCE) and they have a well-defined Code of Ethics for their member’s activities.
ASCE Fundamental Principle #2 calls for engineers to uphold the integrity, honor and dignity of
the profession by “being honest and impartial and serving with fidelity the public…” and Canon
#3 says, “Engineers shall issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner … and
shall not participate in the dissemination of untrue, unfair or exaggerated statements regarding
engineering.”

The statements presented regarding our organization and our projects are all virtually untrue or
exaggerated.

The biggest dishonesty of all, however, is the claim by your chief planner and his hired guns that
our elevated project was used as the model for the HOT lane alternative they are using as a
comparison to the fixed rail system. It is completely dishonest to say the elevated HOT lane in
your transit alternatives analysis is similar to our elevated reversible lanes. And, it is this
dishonesty that results in your HOT lanes costing $2.6 billion instead of the less than $1 billion
that a true copy of our project would cost.

Remember, anyone wanting to control the outcome of the alternatives analysis to favor the train
would most certainly want to find a way to boost the cost of the elevated road concept.

Other than both being built on a bridge, there is virtually nothing the same in the design of the
two projects. Our bridge has three travel lanes. The Honolulu is only two lanes wide. Because of
its unique use of slip ramps for access, our project does not require any interchanges. Your HOT
lane alternative has a number of unnecessary and expensive interchanges. Your project also
includes a number of unnecessary and very expensive bus stations to be built on the elevated
HOT lane structure. Why would you need them? Buses pick you up in your community and use
the roadway for the trip. If the project were designed properly, buses would simply use the on &
off ramps to access local bus stops for passenger pickup and drop-off. These unnecessary bus
stations really boost the cost of the HOT lane alternative. And, the HOT lane alternative also
includes costly park & ride lots – another unnecessary component for this type of facility. All of
these unnecessary elements add over a billion dollars of cost to the HOT lanes and therefore make
the project look much less attractive.




                                               Page A-70
And, the cost estimate to reproduce our elevated reversible lanes project in Honolulu was not
done on the back of an envelope. Our most recent project estimate (September, 2006) to
determine the insurance replacement cost for our bridge was computed by our Authority’s Chief
Financial Officer, a man with a total of 30 years experience financing transportation - 22 of which
were as the financial advisor to Florida’s Governor and CFO for the Florida Department of
Transportation Central Office. His estimate to build our 5.5 miles of bridge with today’s material
and labor costs is $175 million. Extending that to 14 miles in length for the Honolulu HOT lanes
alternative would bring the cost to $450 million. You can add any percentage you wish to
compensate for higher construction costs in Hawaii, but it is easy to see why this project should
not cost you more than $1 billion.

Your city’s chief planner knows this too. He has seen the cost estimates. He just doesn’t want you
to know.

Something else he doesn’t want you to know. All of the cars that would use the HOT lanes to get
to downtown are not new additional trips into the City. They represent a redistribution of the
same trips you would have based on your population and employment. The HOT lanes won’t
produce new trips. They simply would divert trips away from your existing congested highways
thus making the entire system work more efficiently. Growth in population, employment and
commercial development creates more trips. The HOT lane trips also don’t create more parking
problems in downtown Honolulu because they are the same cars that would be parking no matter
which roadway they use to get to the City. And, yes, anyone designing a new HOT lane will have
to solve how traffic can best move in and out of the City. This would not be accomplished by
dumping the traffic into only one location, but likely would involve multiple entrances and
solutions that could address other traffic problems as already suggested by the University of
Hawaii Civil Engineering department. New gateway entrances into Honolulu would also provide
opportunities for new private investment within your downtown.

Prior to opening our express lanes, the average 10-mile trip in the morning peak-hour took over
thirty minutes. Since we opened for interim operations, we have achieved a 50% split in the peak-
hours between our new Reversible Express Lanes and our existing expressway lanes. This has
resulted in a complete balancing of our traffic between our upper and lower lanes with no
congestion for any of our customers and an average trip time of 10 minutes for the 10 miles for
everyone. The express lanes are already handling enough traffic volume in our morning peak
hours to equal having an extra lane constructed on our Interstate into downtown Tampa (about
2,000 per lane per hour).

In addition, the elevated reversible expressway has been so successful that it is attracting 2,000
additional daily trips away from other non-tolled parallel roads. City of Tampa traffic managers
report that all three parallel non-tolled roads are operating better in the peak hour because of
diversions to our new express lanes. We couldn’t be more pleased with the project -- it is doing
exactly what we thought it would -- providing a safe, reliable, convenient, stress-free trip for
people driving into and out of our city every day during what used to be terrible traffic congestion
within our corridor. And, our local transit agency is reporting a 20% increase in ridership on the
express bus routes on our facility within less than three months.

Oh, by the way, the toll is presently $1.00 for the entire trip on the express lanes. However, we
will be raising tolls next year to $1.50. Now about the toll increase. Our agency normally raises
its tolls about once every 8-10 years to keep up with the rising costs associated with inflation.
Our last increase raised our tolls from $.75 to $1.00 for electronic toll customers in 1999. Our



                                             Page A-71
finance plan, established many years ago for our agency, identified next year’s toll rate to go to
$1.50 for electronic customers as a part of our standard toll rate policy.

Are we using the money to pay the debt service for this project as well as our operating cost? Of
course we are. That’s how toll roads work. We build the road today for our needs today and
tomorrow with money that we borrow and then pay back over time, just like the mortgage on
your house. We get an asset with a useful life of 75-100 years - and we get to use that asset
immediately to address our problems today and in the future - and we pay for it as we use it. And,
when we reach positive cash flow on a project, we typically use that money to finance even more
transportation projects. That is a financial approach long ago adopted by the State of Florida. In
fact, every new highway built in our State during the past 15 years has been built by a toll agency,
because, just like Hawaii, virtually all of our fuel taxes are dedicated to maintaining or improving
the existing road system.

We have thousands of people who vote with their pocketbooks every day to use our road. But, if
people don't want to pay for using our tollway, they don't have to. The key is they get to choose,
unlike projects that many people do not want – projects that benefit only a few but are paid for by
all through some general tax scheme. Toll roads are not forced on anyone. They serve those
willing to pay. But, the entire community benefits, including those who do not use the road,
because we improve traffic congestion by diverting traffic away from non-tolled highways and
streets.

If you were to build HOT lanes in Honolulu, your public and private transit providers and high
occupancy users would have a facility that will allow them to guarantee their arrival schedules.
Transit riders would receive reliable, efficient service and automobile drivers would be able to
take advantage of that capacity for a very reasonable price at their discretion. Those who decide
not to pay to use the HOT lanes would also benefit from the reduced congestion in the non-tolled
lanes. The elimination from non-tolled highways of traffic comprised of buses, taxis, vanpools
and carpools along with those auto drivers who decide to pay, will make things better for
everyone.

We think that's pretty terrific. Our customers think so too. And, if anyone on the City staff tells
you a different story, they are either sadly misinformed or they are intentionally falsifying the
facts to achieve a specific end.




                                              Page A-72
Page A-73
Page A-74
Page A-75
Page A-76
Page A-77
Page A-78
Page A-79
Page A-80
Page A-81
Page A-82
Page A-83
Page A-84
Page A-85
Page A-86
Page A-87
Page A-88
Page A-89
Page A-90
Page A-91
Page A-92
Page A-93
Page A-94
Page A-95
Page A-96
Page A-97
Page A-98
Page A-99
Page A-100
Page A-101
Page A-102
Page A-103
Page A-104
Page A-105
Page A-106
Page A-107
Page A-108
Page A-109
Page A-110
Page A-111
Page A-112
Page A-113
Page A-114
Page A-115
Page A-116
Page A-117
Page A-118
Page A-119
Page A-120
Page A-121
Page A-122
Page A-123
Page A-124
Page A-125
Page A-126
Page A-127
Page A-128
Page A-129
Page A-130
Page A-131
Page A-132
Page A-133
Page A-134
Page A-135
Page A-136
Page A-137
Page A-138
Page A-139
Page A-140
Page A-141
Page A-142
Page A-143
Page A-144
Page A-145
Page A-146
Page A-147
Page A-148
Appendix A-3: Business NEPA Scoping Comments




NEPA Scoping Report                               Appendix A   Page A-149
Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project
Page A-150   Appendix A                            NEPA Scoping Report
                          Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project
Page A-151
Page A-152
Page A-153
Page A-154
Page A-155
Page A-156
Page A-157
Page A-158
Page A-159
Page A-160
Page A-161
Page A-162
Appendix A-4: Public NEPA Scoping Comments




NEPA Scoping Report                               Appendix A   Page A-163
Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project
Page A-164   Appendix A                            NEPA Scoping Report
                          Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project
Page A-165
Page A-166
Page A-167
Page A-168
Page A-169
Page A-170
Page A-171
Page A-172
Page A-173
Page A-174
Page A-175
Page A-176
Page A-177
Page A-178
Page A-179
Page A-180
Page A-181
Page A-182
Page A-183
Page A-184
Page A-185
Page A-186
Page A-187
Page A-188
Page A-189
Page A-190
Page A-191
Page A-192
Page A-193
Page A-194
Page A-195
Page A-196
Page A-197
Page A-198
Page A-199
Page A-200
Page A-201
Page A-202
Page A-203
Page A-204
Page A-205
Page A-206
Page A-207
Page A-208
Page A-209
                COMMENTS ON TRANSIT SCOPING MEETINGS

The following comments are provided on the mass transit project of the City and County
of Honolulu, as presented through the media and public meetings. Any reference to the
project in this comment sheet should be construed as “rail” rather than other potential
uses for the fixed guideway.

Transit Support:        Considerable criticism of both the concept of mass transit and the
administration’s handling of the project has been heard and read over the past year. From
my perspective, the mayor and his staff, the Department of Transportation Services
(DTS), and the Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB) analysts have done everything in a proper
manner and have gone well beyond any “transparency” requirements to ensure that the
public was well informed on the project and related issues. In contrast, many comments
heard and letters and articles read indicate that some of our elected officials and many
citizens are uninformed or pursuing specific agendas either opposing transit or promoting
alternatives. The media generally accept these inputs without noting inaccuracies or
identifying associations. Perhaps the project’s public relations team needs to play a little
“hard ball” in the future if the administration wants continued public support—which will
be essential to counteract potential efforts to drop transit as elected officials change over
the long term involved.

Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA):           I fully support the 28-30 mile LPA as shown
in the alternatives analysis (AA), including a spur into Waikiki. The opposition of the
Waikiki community associations and its member of the City Council do not represent the
best interests of all of the residents of O’ahu—and also do not represent the views of a
number of Waikiki residents and people with jobs in the area with whom I have
communicated. Even without an airport-to-Waikiki segment benefiting tourism, easy
transit access to Waikiki will benefit businesses and enhance quality of life for many
workers who keep the tourism “engine” operational. My personal reference for an LPA,
as submitted early in the AA process, was for an additional seven or eight miles of
guideway connecting the main line to Central O’ahu. The city should acknowledge the
positive support given to transit from that area and indicate its desire to make that spur
the first expansion of the LPA.

Minimum Operable Segment (MOS):                My support of the airport alignment through
Section III was given in written and oral testimony. Obviously, there was no choice but
to accept routing via Salt Lake Boulevard if an MOS was to included in the “package”
submitted for federal funding support. A member of the PB staff indicated that a
composite alignment that also services the airport is still possible. Since the Salt Lake
routing will require the guideway to go over the H-1 freeway at some point near Aloha
Stadium, perhaps a composite alignment could keep it mauka of H-1 to the Aolele Street
station, then cross over H-1 to connect to the main station for Salt Lake. This would
eliminate the station near Kahuapaani Street; a larger park-and-ride lot is recommended
for the Aloha Stadium station. Short of planning for two alignments through the airport
and Salt Lake areas, a third station along Salt Lake Boulevard should be opposed. I also
must reiterate my support for extending the west end of the MOS about 4,000 feet into



                                          Page A-210
either Kalaeloa or a composite maintenance and rail yard that includes the Hawaiian
Railway assets. Properties in the vicinity of Leeward Community College or along
Farrington Highway sit on lands that are more valuable than that of Kalaeloa; better use
can be made than a maintenance and storage yard in either of those areas. (Potential
funding is addressed below.) Please consider the above for preliminary engineering.

Transit Service and Technology:         Some form of express service is recommended for
morning and evening rush hours, and occasional runs at other times. For the LPA,
consider an express line with terminals only at Kapolei, UH-West O’ahu, Pearl City,
downtown Honolulu, and the University of Hawaii (UH)-Manoa campus. Maximum
speed for light rail is probably 50 miles per hour (mph); considering acceleration and
deceleration between stops closely spaced, as on O’ahu, a 30 mph average speed may be
the best that can be attained point-to-point. From West Kapolei to downtown Honolulu is
about 20-23 miles, depending on the route selected. From the AA, it seems that stops
between Kapolei and downtown will number between 16 and 20. Assuming an average
speed of 30 mph and 30 seconds at each stop, the time from Kapolei to downtown will be
between 48-56 minutes. Further assuming 15-20 minutes for either using a feeder system
bus or driving to a park-and-ride rail terminal, another 3-6 minutes waiting for a train,
and another 5-10 minutes walk to destination, the commute time from Kapolei becomes a
minimum of 68 minutes and a maximum of 92 minutes. Extending the trip from
downtown to UH-Manoa will add 9-10 stops and take about 15 minutes. These times are
not conducive to luring people out of their privately owned vehicles (POVs) until the
commute on the road becomes overwhelmingly unbearable—probably beyond year 2020.

There are two ways to address the time concerns: an express line or technology that
delivers higher average speeds—or a (preferred) combination of both. Using a light rail
express system will allow higher speeds point-to-point (perhaps even 45 mph). Time
from Kapolei’s western terminus to downtown along a 20-23 mile route will be 32-36
minutes, with the additional three miles to UH-Manoa adding 5-6 minutes (including the
downtown stop). Conventional monorail does not appear to offer enough speed
differential over light rail but magnetic levitation (maglev) intra-urban systems can
reduce times considerably.

Maglev enhancements over the next few years should easily provide average speeds
between stops approaching 100 mph. Using 60 mph will make the 20-23 mile—non-
express—commute from Kapolei to downtown a trip of 28-31 minutes, with another 7-8
minutes to UH-Manoa. Applying the maglev technology to the above-mentioned express
system (with 90 mph achieved due to less acceleration and deceleration) will result in a
Kapolei-to-downtown commute of only 16 or 17 minutes, with three more minutes to
UH-Manoa. A maglev express could change the West Kapolei-to-downtown full
commute to a minimum of 38 minutes and a maximum of 52 minutes—home to office.
Those times will definitely get people out of their POVs.

It is understood that an express will require additional guideway; however, a full third
track is not necessary. At least one maglev system allows for track switching around
stations. The additional costs incurred should—in the long run—increase ridership and,



                                        Page A-211
therefore, fare collections. At the very least, an alternate “skip-stop” form of express
service should be studied; however, true express is considered to be far superior.

The Guideway:            During the past year, DTS and PB analysts mentioned the
possibility of running the guideway at grade level in some areas of O’ahu, particularly in
the open spaces of the Ewa Plain. These planners must drop that idea because no area
within the high-capacity transit corridor will be rural by the year 2030. West Kapolei is
already heavily urban, major housing, retail, and school developments are programmed in
East Kapolei, and the Section I alignment through Kalaeloa is anticipated as a prime
candidate for transit-oriented development. The guideway must remain elevated to avoid
any negative impact on area roads or the possibility of train-vehicle accidents. A fully
elevated guideway also allows for selection from multiple technologies. Even a small
portion of the guideway at grade (perhaps through downtown) may force selection of
light rail as the only acceptable form of technology.

I am aware that transit planners have—more or less—ruled out use of the guideway for
some form of bus system. What they have not done satisfactorily, to date, is provide a
detailed description of the differences between guideways supporting some form of rail
or being used for buses. The larger size, greater “footprint,” need for on-off ramps, and
(resultant) increased costs to accommodate buses must be made clear to those still
involved in the decision-making process as well as the general public.

System Power:           Selection of rail technology could provide an impetus for
alternative forms of energy used to generate the system’s electricity. One form, for
example, could be solar power from photovoltaic panels covering all transit stations,
park-and-ride lots, and, perhaps, connected in series on the makai (i.e., sunny) side of the
full length of the guideway. The use of alternative energy will not only be looked upon
favorably by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the Environmental Protection
Agency but also help meet the governor’s energy goals for the year 2020.

Following is some information collected on solar power: Each photovoltaic panel (5.3 x
2.9 feet) generates 165 watts. Assuming seven stations with 1,200 square feet of roof
space each, solar power generated would be about 90 kilowatts (KW). Assuming three
roofed park-and-ride lots of 250,000 square feet each, solar power generated would be
about 8,050 KW. A single string of panels along the 20-mile MOS guideway would
generate about 3,280 KW. Total solar power generating potential for the MOS would be
11,420 KW. Motor power ratings: Light Rail – 130-174 KW; Monorail – 750-1,500 Vdc
primary power; and Maglev – 1,500 Vdc.

Funding:       Most are aware of the money that will be generated from the surcharge on
the general excise tax (GET) and federal funding support through Congress and the FTA.
The mayor wants loans to expedite construction and also will pursue public-private
partnerships. I am not privy to the recommendations made by the mayor’s Transit
Funding Advisory Committee; however, last year, I suggested a separate Oahu Power and
Transit Authority (OPTA) to oversee system development, implementation, and
operation. This body also could have selection and negotiation authority for the means of



                                         Page A-212
powering the system. To make up the difference between fare receipts and operating
costs, OPTA should be authorized to sell excess (solar generated) electric power to the
Hawaiian Electric Company (HECO)—and purchase power from HECO as required.

Efforts to reduce or eliminate the state’s ten percent cut of the GET surcharge (from
House Bill 1309) were unsuccessful during the current session of the State Legislature.
During testimony given on Senate Bill 930, which was held in committee, and House Bill
724, which passed but was not placed on a committee agenda when sent to the Senate, I
perceived no support from the city or DTS. Perhaps an effort was made “behind the
scenes” but, since the bills will reappear in the 2008 session, it is suggested that the city
“go public” in an effort to add money to the special fund for transit. Elimination of the
state’s ten percent will add more than $300 million to that fund over the surcharge’s
life—a significant increase.

A World Class System (?): Is intra-urban maglev the best technology for O’ahu?
Based on information made available to date, it is certainly competitive in terms of
construction, operations, and maintenance costs; speeds, to include acceleration and
deceleration; noise levels; and ability to support an express system. It also, to me,
represents state-of-the-art technology that will attract not only commuting residents but
also visitors interested in just “taking a ride.” Presumably, maglev system developers
will be as amenable as developers of other technologies to a public-private partnership.

A dynamic transit system also can help to make the “second city” of Kapolei something
more than a typical suburban community. East Kapolei appears to be the last hope for
developing something in Ewa that really resembles a downtown area of a major city—
with a little difference, a portion with a college town atmosphere. With a little vision, the
area around the transit station along the North-South Road between the UH-West O’ahu
campus and the Ho’opili development can become a “destination.” The concept referred
to as “SmartGrowth” defines an area roughly a quarter mile in each direction from the
center in which pedestrians can find virtually anything needed for living as well as
entertainment. There are major “players” that would have to cooperate with the city and
county as well as the state to create downtown Kapolei: the University of Hawaii; Hunt
Building Corporation; D.R. Horton-Schuler; and the Department of Hawaiian Home
Lands. These organizations can plan the college town on the west (UH) side of the road
and the downtown to the east. It may not be the next Waikiki but it can be much more
than the Aloha Tower Marketplace.

The “linchpin” for this concept would be a transit center (i.e., not just a station) with a
huge park-and-ride lot. It could accommodate major retail and fast food outlets and other
amenities, leaving the downtown area to entertainment venues (including live theater),
specialty stores, and (indoor and outdoor) restaurants. The Ewa Plain and West Kapolei
have accepted thousands of housing units, government offices, and (the inevitable) strip
malls; it deserves a downtown East Kapolei as its quid pro quo.

Submitted by Frank Genadio
Telephone: 672-9170



                                          Page A-213
Page A-214
Page A-215
1

2

3

4                     TRANSCRIPT OF VERBAL COMMENTS

5                  MADE AT THE PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING

6              REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

7                FOR THE HONOLULU HIGH-CAPACITY TRANSIT

8                            CORRIDOR PROJECT

9

10

11                      THURSDAY, MARCH 29, 2007

12                          5:00 - 8:00 P.M.

13

14

15                   MCKINLEY HIGH SCHOOL CAFETERIA

16                       1039 SOUTH KING STREET

17                           HONOLULU, HAWAII

18

19

20

21

22   BEFORE:     SANDRA J. GRAN, CSR NO. 424

23               Registered Professional Reporter

24

25


                  RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.




                          Page A-216
Wendell Lum
45-135 Lilipuna Road
Kaneohe, Hawaii 96744-3022

           MR. LUM:   My name is Wendell Lum, 45-135

            7   Lilipuna Road, L-I-L-I-P-U-N-A, Road, Kaneohe.       The Zip Code

            8   is 96744-3022.

            9                    I'm very familiar with Vancouver Sky Train.

           10   In fact, I provided information to the consultant.       And I've

           11   been going to the website that was created by Bombardier, one

           12   of the primary contractors who built the Millennium Edition

           13   for the Vancouver Sky Train.       In 1985 there was an Expo and

           14   the Expo line was created.        And in the year 2000 construction

           15   was began on another extended line called the Millennium line

           16   for a distance of 12.6 miles at a cost of slightly under $800

           17   million, and it included all the vehicles, maintenance,

           18   construction.

           19                    And that's the part where I have concern for


           20   the alternative being chosen.       The Millennium line was very

           21   different from the Expo line.       The Millennium line was a

           22   single column constructed with cars -- vehicles going both

           23   directions.   In other words, if it was on this island, it

           24   would go east and west.     And it was completed in two years.

           25   And for that Millennium line, it was built -- completed under


                              RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.

                                          (808) 524-2090




                                     Page A-217
1    budget of $100 million.     And I see the construction being put

2    up faster.   And the tools that they use, they can put up

3    whole segments between columns, after the columns are put in,

4    and put in the guide ways.        And construction was done pretty

5    rapid.

6                     And the public had a chance to go on the

7    website during that time, you know, 2000, 2002.       That website

8    was rapidtransit.bc.ca, but -- You still can get to the

9    website, but then it's going to divert you to another system,

10   another transportation system for the whole Vancouver Sky

11   Train system.

12                    And the system was done in two years, but the

13   vehicles were made on the West Coast of Canada.       And I'm

14   assuming that the construction, if it was -- The construction

15   was -- If we chose that manufacturer, hopefully, the same

16   manufacturer -- Because I don't know how this bidding process

17   of ours is going to be done.       And I know there are experts in

18   worldwide construction of transportation systems and airport

19   and various kind of modes of transportation, not only a

20   weight separated rail system.       And I know they are based in

21   Quebec, Canada, but there are plants not only in Quebec, but

22   more in different parts of the world.

23                   So I guess I can go on for quite a while, but

24   I think going out and putting out to bid and choosing a

25   manufacturer that has poor skills -- not poor skills, but




                          Page A-218
1    lack of skills and abilities -- I can see choosing a

2    contractor that has a lot of skills or a big name that is

3    well known in the transportation system worldwide.      And I see

4    subsidiaries and the local companies in Hawaii want to get on

5    this thing and probably union labor, but I don't see it as a

6    foundation or a significant funding that should be directed

7    to local contractors.     That's my opinion.

8                     By the way, the vehicles in the Vancouver

9    system in the Millennium line are driverless.      There's no

10   driver.   And it uses -- it's very energy efficient and it's a

11   very quiet system.   It runs about approximately under 30

12   miles an hour, but close to that.    It can go twice as fast,

13   but just for the safety, I guess, it goes at a lower speed.

14   And I know it uses very little electricity.       And the

15   maintenance --

16                    There never has been any accidents in the

17   Vancouver system.    And that's an important part, I think.

18   The City and County would want not to be held liable.       And a

19   company with a historical -- I don't know if the sky train

20   system in Bangkok, maybe that's the same contractor, also,

21   that built the system.     I really don't know.

22                    The Vancouver system was built in -- and the

23   monies that I gave you of 700, approximately -- I think it

24   was 760 million was in American dollars.       So if you convert

25   that to Canadian dollars, it's going to be about 1.2 million,




                          Page A-219
1   approximately.

2                    That's all.




                        Page A-220
1

2

3

4                     TRANSCRIPT OF VERBAL COMMENTS

5                  MADE AT THE PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING

6              REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

7                FOR THE HONOLULU HIGH-CAPACITY TRANSIT

8                            CORRIDOR PROJECT

9

10

11                      THURSDAY, MARCH 29, 2007

12                          5:00 - 8:00 P.M.

13

14

15                   MCKINLEY HIGH SCHOOL CAFETERIA

16                       1039 SOUTH KING STREET

17                           HONOLULU, HAWAII

18

19

20

21

22   BEFORE:     SANDRA J. GRAN, CSR NO. 424

23               Registered Professional Reporter

24

25


                  RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.




                          Page A-221
Ted Kanemori
46-066 Heeia Street
Kaneohe, Hawaii 96744-3647

            2                     MR. KANEMORI:    My name is Ted Kanemori,

            3   K-A-N-E-M-O-R-I, 46-066 Heeia Street, Kaneohe, Hawaii

            4   96744-3647.

            5                     I'm in favor of the transit system.    It's

            6   just that I disagree with the way they're going about it.

            7   All of the council people agreed that it's not the best

            8   solution to go through Salt Lake and all of the council

            9   people have stated that it's being done for political

           10   reasons.     Mayor Hannemann says, "That's not our first choice,

           11   but it is our second choice."      With all this dissension, I

           12   don't see how they expect to garner support from the public

           13   in spending these huge amounts of money.

           14                     Secondly, I think that the system should

           15   begin between Waikiki and Ala Moana.     Talking to the support

           16   people here in this meeting, I've asked them:       Once you build

           17   a one-mile segment from Kapolei, how many people are going to

           18   ride it?     Once you build a second mile, how many people are

           19   going to ride it?    But if you build that two-mile segment

           20   from Waikiki to Ala Moana, it will immediately become a

           21   revenue-generating source from the tourists.

           22                     Having told all that, they need a base yard

           23   to start the project.      And I have asked them:   After X number

           24   of years, will building the remaining rail system in Waikiki

           25   get any less expensive?      I think that they ought to build




                                      Page A-222
1   that first self-sustainable segment first and then go ahead

2   and extend it out through Kapolei, whichever way they build

3   it.




                       Page A-223
1

2

3

4                     TRANSCRIPT OF VERBAL COMMENTS

5                  MADE AT THE PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING

6              REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

7                FOR THE HONOLULU HIGH-CAPACITY TRANSIT

8                            CORRIDOR PROJECT

9

10

11                      THURSDAY, MARCH 29, 2007

12                          5:00 - 8:00 P.M.

13

14

15                   MCKINLEY HIGH SCHOOL CAFETERIA

16                       1039 SOUTH KING STREET

17                           HONOLULU, HAWAII

18

19

20

21

22   BEFORE:     SANDRA J. GRAN, CSR NO. 424

23               Registered Professional Reporter

24

25


                  RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.




                         Page A-224
Setsuko Hayakawa
1330 Ala Moana Boulevard, No. 3901
Honolulu, Hawaii

            MS. HAYAKAWA:    My name is Setsuko Hayakawa,

            5    1330 Ala Moana Boulevard, No. 3901, Honolulu, Hawaii.

            6                    I have seen the map of the railroad and I

            7    think it is misplaced because the railroad is coming right

            8    behind the high density condominium area between Ala Moana

            9    Shopping Center and Ward Center.    And the train, by its

           10    nature, makes lots of noise during the construction and also

           11    during the operation.

           12                    And I think that the railroad should be

           13    placed, if it ever has to be placed, towards the -- close to

           14    the H1 or Kings Business Area, King Street Business Area.

           15    Or, more preferably, I think the express railroad should
stop

           16    at the Alakawa area right outside of the downtown area from

           17    the west.   And then everybody gets off there, then there

           18    should be a large bus terminal taking the people to the
final

            19   destination.   That way the City can save all the
construction

           20    and maintenance costs in the -- beyond that point on and the

           21    purpose is well served.

           22                    And this way, the railroad coming right into

           23    the high density residential area, particularly between
those

           24    two points that I mentioned, will be a great disturbance and

           25    harmful to the view and environment and the living condition


                             RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.

                                           (808) 524-2090



                                     Page A-225
1   of the residents.

2                  Thank you.

3                  And, also, I'd like to say my husband,

4   Kanichi Hayakawa, K-A-N-I-C-H-I, and I just want to say that

5   he agrees with me.     There are two opinions.




                         Page A-226
1

2

3

4                     TRANSCRIPT OF VERBAL COMMENTS

5                  MADE AT THE PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING

6              REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

7                FOR THE HONOLULU HIGH-CAPACITY TRANSIT

8                            CORRIDOR PROJECT

9

10

11                      THURSDAY, MARCH 29, 2007

12                          5:00 - 8:00 P.M.

13

14

15                   MCKINLEY HIGH SCHOOL CAFETERIA

16                       1039 SOUTH KING STREET

17                           HONOLULU, HAWAII

18

19

20

21

22   BEFORE:     SANDRA J. GRAN, CSR NO. 424

23               Registered Professional Reporter

24

25


                  RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.




                          Page A-227
Linda Starr
Post Office Box 240310
Honolulu, Hawaii 96824


           20                    MS. STARR:       My name is Linda Starr.   It's

           21   Post Office Box 240310, and it's Honolulu, Hawaii, Zip Code

           22   96824.   And my e-mail is wailan@hawaii.rr.com.

           23                    I used to work for State DOT from 1971 to

           24   1979.    And I've been on the Kuliouou, Kalani-Iki Neighborhood

           25   Board, too, for 20 years as the transportation chair, the


                             RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.

                                          (808) 524-2090




                                     Page A-228
1    chair of transportation.      And I've been the chair of the

2    transportation committee for just about 20 years, so I've

3    been reactive in the transportation issues.

4                     I've ridden mass transit in Hong Kong, in New

5    York, in San Francisco, in Washington, DC, but -- you know,

6    so I've ridden mass transit systems from a disabled person's

7    point of view with cane, with crutches, with wheelchair.       And

8    I have a lot of concerns on how the people that use the

9    assistive devices are going to be able to readily use these

10   systems.

11                    A lot of systems are compliant, but not

12   practical or not usable.      They're minimally compliant.   We

13   rely on elevators.   If the elevator breaks, you can't use the

14   system.    Because we need the elevator, we have -- sometimes

15   we have to wait like three and four routes of elevator going

16   up and down because you've got people that use the elevator,

17   they've got their suitcases, they've got their computer on

18   wheels, they've got their children in strollers, whatever.

19   And so one of the systems, I sat there and I waited for the

20   elevator to open and close I think like seven or eight times.

21   It's not convenient.

22                    My main concern for this project is that I

23   don't believe that it is the solution that the community


24   needs.    They need something now.   They need simple, low-cost

25   items like synchronizing streetlights, like access lanes,




                          Page A-229
1    holding lanes.   Simple, low-cost solutions like having

2    dedicated service feeder, small buses to get people to the

3    main bus station.

4                     If the system, you know, does go ahead, I

5    would like the system to provide services to the

6    traditionally underserved communities such as Makaha,

7    Wainani, Nanakuli.   The traditionally underserved

8    communities, that's where the low-income people who would be

9    willing to take the service jobs in Waikiki would be working,


10   you know.

11                    I don't believe that Kapolei is the

12   appropriate place for the start of the system.   Originally,

13   Kapolei community was to be a second Waikiki where the rich

14   people would go, and they're not going to ride the train.    We

15   have the people at Ewa Beach, they would love to have some

16   form of coordinated mass transit.

17                    So how can I sum this up?   No, no, don't

18   (pause) --

19                    There needs to be not only accessibility, but

20   usability and practical-ness in the thinking of this system.

21   Okay.




                          Page A-230
1

2

3

4                     TRANSCRIPT OF VERBAL COMMENTS

5                  MADE AT THE PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING

6              REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

7                FOR THE HONOLULU HIGH-CAPACITY TRANSIT

8                            CORRIDOR PROJECT

9

10

11                      THURSDAY, MARCH 29, 2007

12                          5:00 - 8:00 P.M.

13

14

15                   MCKINLEY HIGH SCHOOL CAFETERIA

16                       1039 SOUTH KING STREET

17                           HONOLULU, HAWAII

18

19

20

21

22   BEFORE:     SANDRA J. GRAN, CSR NO. 424

23               Registered Professional Reporter

24

25


                  RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.




                          Page A-231
Katherine Kupukaa
95-685 Makaunulau Street
Mililani Town, 96789


          MS. KUPUKAA:     My name is Katherine Kupukaa,

            4   95-685 Makaunulau Street, Mililani Town, 96789.

            5                     Well, anyway, I'm against this whole fixed

            6   skyway system only because I don't feel that they're going to

            7   have the ridership.

            8                     One of the big areas that I think much

            9   thought hasn't been given to is Kamehameha Highway around by

           10   Sam's Club.    Anyway, I use that route coming from Mililani.

           11   Sometimes I get off the H2 and I take Kamehameha Highway.      If

           12   they are going to take up, you know, two lanes to build this

           13   fixed skyway rail, what's going to happen to the traffic that

           14   right now is quite congested when you have the bus taking up

           15   the right lane?    Which some mornings I have to pass two or

           16   three buses.    But as soon as, you know, they pull up to a bus

           17   stop, I go right around and, you know, switch lanes and get

           18   in front of them.    And that takes up, you know, my driving

           19   time.

           20                     So I don't know whether the engineers or

           21   whatever thought about these power lines along Kamehameha

           22   Highway.    I mean, have they ever taken a look at that?

           23                     Also, another area is going down Salt Lake

           24   Boulevard.    Where are all these people that are going to hop

           25   on to this rail system when I find that people on the bus




                                      Page A-232
1    stops along Kamehameha Highway?    No more than a dozen people.

2    So I don't think people are going to give up their cars.

3    You're looking at people who are just going to switch from

4    bus ridership to the rail, which I find that why should we be

5    taxed for all that to build the fixed skyway when they are

6    not going to get the ridership?

7                     And, anyway, what I see a bigger problem is

8    when the one and three-quarter miles on the viaduct, we have

9    a big problem where buses who are on the -- not the carpool

10   lane, but the -- What do they call it?    The zipper lane.

11   They switch from the zipper lane and they come on to the

12   viaduct.   Now we have the A bus, the No. 52 and the C bus, C

13   buses, and they're all cutting over, switching about three,

14   four lanes.   And so what the engineers need to do is find a

15   solution for the buses that drive on the zipper lane so they

16   can cut over.

17                    I don't know.    So, to me, the best solution

18   would have been the hot lanes or the managed lanes.    And I

19   understand that that was dropped from the decision making as,

20   I don't know, a viable transit system.

21                    And, also, if the fixed skyway system is

22   going to go on Dillingham Boulevard, I travel on Dillingham

23   Boulevard.    That's another area where there's a lot of cars

24   going down there.   And if you take up two middle lanes,

25   what's going to happen to us drivers?




                          Page A-233
1   Anyway, that's all I have to say.   Thank you.




       Page A-234
1

2

3

4                     TRANSCRIPT OF VERBAL COMMENTS

5                  MADE AT THE PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING

6              REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

7                FOR THE HONOLULU HIGH-CAPACITY TRANSIT

8                            CORRIDOR PROJECT

9

10

11                      THURSDAY, MARCH 29, 2007

12                          5:00 - 8:00 P.M.

13

14

15                   MCKINLEY HIGH SCHOOL CAFETERIA

16                       1039 SOUTH KING STREET

17                           HONOLULU, HAWAII

18

19

20

21

22   BEFORE:     SANDRA J. GRAN, CSR NO. 424

23               Registered Professional Reporter

24

25


                  RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.




                          Page A-235
Caron Wilberts
733 16th Avenue
Honolulu, Hawaii


          MS. WILBERTS:     My name is Caron Wilberts, 733

            3      16th Avenue.

            4                      I am for the rail system just as long as the

            5      property owners of Honolulu will not be footing the bill for

            6      it.   We, the working poor and the elderly, have seen how

            7      frivolously our tax money has been spent over the years and

            8      the decades, and this project to us seems like it will

            9      probably be the same.    We cannot afford any more tax

           10      increases.   We are having to choose between buying groceries

           11      and buying our medicine.     And everybody should have a fair

           12      responsibility in helping to pay for the transit, not just

           13      the property owners, because it always seems like the city

           14      council dips into our pockets.    No more.

           15                      I have had a personal assurance from your

           16      budget chair that the property owners will not be footing the

           17      bill for this, and I will hold her to it.    Just something for

           18      all of you to think about.

           19                      That's it.




                                       Page A-236
                                                          1

1

2

3

4                  TRANSCRIPT OF VERBAL COMMENTS

5               MADE AT THE PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING

6          REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

7              FOR THE HONOLULU HIGH-CAPACITY TRANSIT

8                         CORRIDOR PROJECT

9

10                   WEDNESDAY, MARCH 28, 2007

11                        6:00 - 9:00 P.M.

12

13                           KAPOLEI HALE

14                      1000 ULUOHIA STREET

15                     KAPOLEI, HAWAII   96707

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24
     BEFORE:   LESLIE L. TAKEDA, RPR, CSR N0. 423
25             Certified Shorthand Reporter


              Ralph Rosenberg Court Reporters, Inc.
          Ofc: (808) 524-2090     Fax: (808) 524-2596


                          Page A-237
Rodlyn Brown
85-303 Kohai Place
Waianae, Hawaii 96792




          20            MS. BROWN:   First of all, we need this rail

          21   system put in as soon as possible.   It should have been

          22   done 30 years ago, when it was more affordable than

          23   today.   It should be through Kapolei, to Ewa, to the

          24   airport, to Manoa campus, because that way it will hit

          25   both the new campus and the old campus of the college,


                        Ralph Rosenberg Court Reporters, Inc.
                    Ofc: (808) 524-2090     Fax: (808) 524-2596




                                     Page A-238
                                                            16

1   and no political person should hold the people hostage as

2   to where it goes.    It needs to go where the people need

3   it.   And this is why we need to become a referendum

4   state, so that the people can actually vote on these

5   things instead of some political hacks that are holding

6   the people hostage, taking it where they want, for their

7   constituents only.




                          Page A-239
                                                          1

1

2

3

4                  TRANSCRIPT OF VERBAL COMMENTS

5               MADE AT THE PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING

6          REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

7              FOR THE HONOLULU HIGH-CAPACITY TRANSIT

8                         CORRIDOR PROJECT

9

10                   WEDNESDAY, MARCH 28, 2007

11                        6:00 - 9:00 P.M.

12

13                           KAPOLEI HALE

14                      1000 ULUOHIA STREET

15                     KAPOLEI, HAWAII   96707

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24
     BEFORE:   LESLIE L. TAKEDA, RPR, CSR N0. 423
25             Certified Shorthand Reporter


              Ralph Rosenberg Court Reporters, Inc.
          Ofc: (808) 524-2090     Fax: (808) 524-2596


                           Page A-240
Polly "Granny" Grace
P.O. Box 299
Waianae, Hawaii 96792


MS. GRACE:    I'm Polly Grace, better known as

             1    "Granny," from Waianae.    I come here speaking on behalf

             2    of the paycheck-to-paycheck families.

             3             We need the transit to go from Kalaeloa to

             4    Waikiki, especially to Pearl Harbor, Hickam, and airport.

             5    Why we need that is because that's where -- the work

             6    force is coming from the west side of the island, then

             7    needs to go to the east side of the island or central

             8    side of the island to work.        Most of us work paycheck to

             9    paycheck.   If we don't get to work on time, it's hard,

             10   difficult to man a house, man a family.       I know Salt Lake

             11   wants it; but we on the Leeward side, we need it to go to

             12   the airport and to Waikiki.        There are a lot of kupunas

             13   who work at Waikiki as a second job for them because the

             14   Social Security doesn't pay that much and, you know, so

             15   they need the extra cash to live on.       Most families in

             16   our area have to work two, three jobs to put food on the

             17   table.   And they pay taxes, too, yeah, because they work

             18   two, three jobs.   So, it's imperative that we have it

             19   Kalaeloa, through Ewa, through Waipahu -- Kapolei,

             20   Waipahu, Ewa -- no -- Kapolei, Ewa, Waipahu, to

             21   Pearl Harbor, Hickam, airport, and Waikiki.       I know it

             22   seems selfish about not going to Manoa, but maybe

             23   eventually, because there are only students who ride the

             24   bus -- can ride the bus, where they get off at downtown

             25   and they can ride the bus up.       Because there are more



                                        Page A-241
                                                             12

1   people trying to make money than there are children

2   trying to get education at UH, because we do have a

3   Leeward, and eventually we'll have a West Oahu campus.




                         Page A-242
                                                          1

1

2

3

4                  TRANSCRIPT OF VERBAL COMMENTS

5               MADE AT THE PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING

6          REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

7              FOR THE HONOLULU HIGH-CAPACITY TRANSIT

8                         CORRIDOR PROJECT

9

10                   WEDNESDAY, MARCH 28, 2007

11                        6:00 - 9:00 P.M.

12

13                           KAPOLEI HALE

14                      1000 ULUOHIA STREET

15                     KAPOLEI, HAWAII   96707

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24
     BEFORE:   LESLIE L. TAKEDA, RPR, CSR N0. 423
25             Certified Shorthand Reporter


              Ralph Rosenberg Court Reporters, Inc.
          Ofc: (808) 524-2090     Fax: (808) 524-2596


                          Page A-243
Gig Greenwood
P. O. Box 22898
Honolulu, Hawaii   96823


                                                                              3

           1           WEDNESDAY, MARCH 28, 2007; KAPOLEI, HAWAII

           2
           3

           4               MR. GREENWOOD:   My name is Gig Greenwood.

           5               Back in the '90s there was a competition for

           6   mass transit, and there were four competitors for the

           7   project.    There was to be $1.8 billion for a mass transit

           8   system to run from Kapolei to Honolulu, with University

           9   of Hawaii, Waikiki, and the airport as part of the

          10   project.    I was on the Aloha Skyways team, which did not

          11   get the bid.    The team which got the bid received their

          12   winning bid on a Wednesday.         On the following Monday,

          13   their price had gone from 1.8 billion to 2.2 billion.          It

          14   was announced later in the week that the price would be


          15   $2.5 billion.    And the week after that, they said they

          16   could not do the University of Hawaii or the Waikiki

          17   spurts for that amount of money.        That's a little history

          18   of how mass transits have gone in the past.

          19               The main reason I wanted to come down is that

          20   during the several years that I worked on the Aloha

          21   Skyways team, one of the things that we had determined

          22   was that people from outside of the state would make a

          23   difference whether or not the mass transit system would

          24   make a profit or not.     At that time, we felt so strongly

          25   that the market was there for local and visitor traffic



                                      Page A-244
1    to make a profit with a monorail that we had it totally

2    privately funded; yet, today we're talking about having

3    billions of taxpayer dollars fund this project.    If done

4    properly, a mass transit system in Hawaii can be

5    profitable.   We felt that the monorail would attract

6    one-third or more of the visitors to Hawaii because they

7    would want to ride on a monorail.   Any other type of

8    train is a train and would not get the ridership from

9    outside of the state.   Also, local people would want to

10   ride a monorail, but the statistics showed that they were

11   not as enthusiastic about other forms of mass

12   transportation.

13           I would urge all of those who are considering

14   our mass transit needs to highly consider some sort of

15   monorail system and to promote it as a tourist

16   destination, as well as a means of transportation.




                          Page A-245
                                                          1

1

2

3

4                  TRANSCRIPT OF VERBAL COMMENTS

5               MADE AT THE PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING

6          REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

7              FOR THE HONOLULU HIGH-CAPACITY TRANSIT

8                         CORRIDOR PROJECT

9

10                   WEDNESDAY, MARCH 28, 2007

11                        6:00 - 9:00 P.M.

12

13                           KAPOLEI HALE

14                      1000 ULUOHIA STREET

15                     KAPOLEI, HAWAII   96707

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24
     BEFORE:   LESLIE L. TAKEDA, RPR, CSR N0. 423
25             Certified Shorthand Reporter


              Ralph Rosenberg Court Reporters, Inc.
          Ofc: (808) 524-2090     Fax: (808) 524-2596


                          Page A-246
Georgette Stevens
P.O. Box 75414
Kapolei, Hawaii 96707




GEORGETTE STEVENS:   As a resident of Kapolei and

          10   growing up on the Leeward coast, I have always supported

          11   a form of mass transit, whether it be light rail, heavy

          12   rail, a combination of different transportation modes, in

          13   order to get the people from the west coast to where a

          14   lot of the places of employment are.     And it is

          15   unfortunate that it's taken us this long to even get to

          16   this point, and I would be very disappointed if we don't

          17   move further to where we actually have a system in place.

          18   So, I support the mass rail.      I support whatever efforts

          19   we need to make to ensure that it happens, and that

          20   environmentally -- I will work hard to make sure that we

          21   are held accountable to the environment, but also to make

          22   sure that we do have the rail development.




                                    Page A-247
                                                          1

1

2

3

4                  TRANSCRIPT OF VERBAL COMMENTS

5               MADE AT THE PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING

6          REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

7              FOR THE HONOLULU HIGH-CAPACITY TRANSIT

8                         CORRIDOR PROJECT

9

10                   WEDNESDAY, MARCH 28, 2007

11                        6:00 - 9:00 P.M.

12

13                           KAPOLEI HALE

14                      1000 ULUOHIA STREET

15                     KAPOLEI, HAWAII   96707

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24
     BEFORE:   LESLIE L. TAKEDA, RPR, CSR N0. 423
25             Certified Shorthand Reporter


              Ralph Rosenberg Court Reporters, Inc.
          Ofc: (808) 524-2090     Fax: (808) 524-2596


                          Page A-248
Carolyn Ancheta
91-1058 Keokolo Street
Kapolei, Hawaii 96707




MS. ANCHETA:   My name is Carolyn Ancheta, and

           7   I'm from the Villages at Kapolei.   I've been a resident

           8   in the Villages for 11 years, and I have watched the

           9   growth that has been just in the recent 5 years really

          10   taking off, including the land value.   But most of all,

          11   what I'm looking at at this time is the value as to the

          12   relationships of the people and what's happening in the

          13   Villages, to the point where -- people leave so early in

          14   the morning and come home late at night.    They're not

          15   able to attend our meetings, which is a very dangerous

          16   situation, because there's not enough communication given

          17   to give the great value of what is needed here.   So, by

          18   them not getting there, we are put on the table to accept

          19   what is put there.   The issue is that I've been called by

          20   many people to speak out in public on it.

          21             I'm on the Board of Directors of the Villages of

          22   Kapolei for some 4,000 houses and still growing, have

          23   done a lot of volunteer work within the community and

          24   schools and civic meetings with the City and County,

          25   Division of Planning and everything; and now as I've


                         Ralph Rosenberg Court Reporters, Inc.
                     Ofc: (808) 524-2090     Fax: (808) 524-2596




                                    Page A-249
                                                              13

1    taken time off and now I'm jumping back in, I feel that,

2    you know, everything has been done and planned.   And now

3    I'm hearing the older people voicing and saying that they

4    would really want it not to pass through the center of

5    Kapolei, the city, but in the outskirts of Kalaeloa and

6    continuing down the corridors -- Waipahu, Pearl City,

7    airport, and on down to Waikiki -- because they feel that

8    the older generation and people that, I guess, utilize

9    the bus services use the system more than anyone else and

10   find it hard to accept that the cars will be taken off

11   the street.

12           I believe that we're affording the University of

13   Hawaii students to have the bigger share of the use of

14   the transit.   I feel at this time, because that's the

15   younger generation, they could afford to get on the buses

16   connecting themselves to the University of Hawaii and

17   letting the transit system support the workers of the

18   State of Hawaii and the City and County and various

19   employments, because that's the taxpayers.   And here in

20   Kapolei, as I did a lot of grant work and just

21   neighbor-to-neighbor type of projects, I found out a lot

22   of students here didn't go to University of Hawaii; they

23   went elsewhere or just to Leeward College or just went

24   straight to work.

25           We live in a community down here in the Villages


              Ralph Rosenberg Court Reporters, Inc.
          Ofc: (808) 524-2090     Fax: (808) 524-2596


                          Page A-250
                                                                 14

1    which is 60, 40 percent affordable, and more affordables

2    will come about.   I know some people here in the Villages

3    that work two or three jobs just to make their mortgages

4    and take care of their families.     And with everything

5    going up and the cost of our fundamental structures, the

6    sewer systems, the garbage pickups, electricity, water

7    all going up, I find that it's a real hardship, and we

8    should be more supportive of the people that are in the

9    work force here.

10           In finishing up the work for the

11   neighbor-to-neighbor project, which was funded by several

12   big agencies here in Hawaii, we want to connect the

13   neighbors with each other and find out what their

14   hardships and needs are.      I've come to the conclusion

15   that they come home so late, they're so misinformed, and

16   they cannot participate in all this.     So, the hardship of

17   this is that when they come home, they get into arguments

18   with their neighbors, find little things to biddy about,

19   and become so built up and pent up with a lot of

20   frustrations going on before they even get home that it's

21   not developing a happy neighborhood.     I have a street

22   full of people that are constantly calling saying they

23   cannot interact with their neighbors without realizing

24   that the problem is not your nextdoor neighbor but it's

25   been something else.     The hardship of that is that they


              Ralph Rosenberg Court Reporters, Inc.
          Ofc: (808) 524-2090     Fax: (808) 524-2596


                            Page A-251
                                                              15

1    were in traffic for, say, an hour, they've had road rage

2    somewhere, and then getting down to the Villages at

3    Kapolei where we're at and getting home and seeing that

4    someone's dog messed their yards up will turn them and

5    make them very angry, or their children aren't at home.

6    It's a mixture of hardships and it's overwhelming, so

7    that people cannot really respond to it at this time

8    because they find it difficult, that maybe they've got

9    the problem or too much misinformation has been given to

10   them from other people without getting here to learn on

11   their own.   So, the conflict keeps on being created and

12   they neglect to get to our meetings.   And you know what's

13   going to happen; right?    They, at the age of retirement,

14   will have to put up with everything that they should have

15   taken care of in the first place; that is, become a good

16   neighbor and become a good citizen by participating as a

17   taxpayer.




                          Page A-252
                                                          1

1

2

3

4                  TRANSCRIPT OF VERBAL COMMENTS

5               MADE AT THE PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING

6          REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

7              FOR THE HONOLULU HIGH-CAPACITY TRANSIT

8                         CORRIDOR PROJECT

9

10                   WEDNESDAY, MARCH 28, 2007

11                        6:00 - 9:00 P.M.

12

13                           KAPOLEI HALE

14                      1000 ULUOHIA STREET

15                     KAPOLEI, HAWAII   96707

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24
     BEFORE:   LESLIE L. TAKEDA, RPR, CSR N0. 423
25             Certified Shorthand Reporter


              Ralph Rosenberg Court Reporters, Inc.
          Ofc: (808) 524-2090     Fax: (808) 524-2596


                          Page A-253
Carlson C. P. Look
94-423 Ikepono Street
Waipahu, Hawaii 96797-1619


                                                                        3

           1       MR. LOOK:   My solution is a multi-faceted

          20   solution to the problem with mass transit right now.

          21   One, the simplest solution that we can try, why don't we

          22   experiment with having a bus-only lane, 24 hours a day, 7

          23   days a week; so, you have a lane that's dedicated to

          24   buses only.   It would be the exact same thing as mass

          25   transit, and we could try that for six months and see how


                        Ralph Rosenberg Court Reporters, Inc.
                    Ofc: (808) 524-2090     Fax: (808) 524-2596




                                    Page A-254
                                                                    5

1    much people actually ride it.      Dedicate that lane all the

2    time.   The problem with the monorail, for example, is, if

3    it breaks, how do you fix it?      It becomes dead on the

4    line.   But say you had a bus-only lane, one car breaks,

5    you could just take it out and swap another one right

6    back in.

7               Also, the problem with a mass transit system is

8    it stops at certain areas but doesn't allow to go into

9    the neighborhoods.   This bus line can break out and still

10   go into the neighborhoods, which people don't have to

11   walk 20 minutes or so.    Or if they're elderly, incapable,

12   handicapped, it's really difficult for some people to

13   even walk for 10 minutes let alone.      That's my one thing

14   that I want to stress majorly.

15              And the biggest thing is this eyesore that's

16   going to be in the skyline, if it is above the skyline.

17   It's going to be a 20-mile monument sitting on the

18   skyline all the time for us to see.      People don't come to

19   Hawaii to look at another Los Angeles or New York City.

20   They come to Hawaii because of its beaches, because of

21   its people, because of the environment.      We don't want to

22   make another major city.

23              Next thing I have is, these are steps that we

24   can take to help generate money and/or use those monies

25   that are being appropriated.       What is it -- is it going


                 Ralph Rosenberg Court Reporters, Inc.
             Ofc: (808) 524-2090     Fax: (808) 524-2596


                           Page A-255
                                                                        6

1    to be, like, $5 billion to make this mass transit system?

2    Or more maybe?    One thing I'd like to do is move the City

3    and County, State, Federal workers all to the west side;

4    all the offices move out to this side.           I know

5    everybody's going to say the problem being you can't tell

6    people where to live and where to move.           Correct.   But

7    they're ramming this 5 billion-dollar monorail down our

8    throat, basically, telling us, This is what you're going

9    to have.

10              Same thing:     We should also move the University

11   of Hawaii.    There's no reason for it to be where it is in

12   Manoa.   Prime real estate.           Why does it need to be there?

13              The medical school, why did it need to be on the

14   waterfront?   It doesn't need to be.          There's a lot less

15   expensive property here on the west side, where all of

16   that could be.

17              How do we get the people to go?         We offer them

18   tax incentives.   We say, You work City and County, you

19   live on the west side, we'll give you a tax incentive.

20              We also can provide more affordable housing on

21   this side than we can anyplace else.           We all know that

22   the growth is happening in this area.           It's all on the

23   west side.    It's not happening anyplace on the east side,

24   practically; and homes are unaffordable there, anyway.

25              So, another thing is electric cars.         We want to


              Ralph Rosenberg Court Reporters, Inc.
          Ofc: (808) 524-2090     Fax: (808) 524-2596


                              Page A-256
                                                                    7

1    say that the monorail is going to remove our dependency

2    on oil.    So, why not have electric cars?    Here's my

3    solution for that, too:     Everybody says, Well, an

4    electric car is no good because it can't provide enough

5    people.    The problem is now three-fourths of the people

6    on the road are single persons driving in the car.        My

7    solution is every single person who has to drive one

8    person in a car has an electric car.      He has no other

9    purpose.   He's not carrying five people in his car.      They

10   now make cars that are in-line cars, like a motorcycle,

11   where two people can ride in it, it has a 500-hundred

12   mile range, and has an average speed -- a top speed of 80

13   miles per hour.   Same thing:      We offer tax incentives for

14   people to buy these cars.


15              Then we have to make the ferry work.    The ferry

16   has to work from the west side to the east side.       Because

17   if we get the ferry to work, same thing.      You can get a

18   ton load of cars from the west side into the east side,

19   to Honolulu, or wherever it may be.

20              An electric car doesn't need additional

21   infrastructure.   An electric car, because it's in-line

22   and small, occupies less space in a lane.      Four electric

23   cars can occupy the same space an SUV is occupying now.

24   Also, four electric cars can occupy the same space of a

25   parking stall.    So, we don't need to build more roads; we




                           Page A-257
                                                                   8

1    don't need to build more parking stalls.     The electric

2    car will fit, saving oil and environmental concerns.

3               The problem with living on the west side, a lot

4    of people say, is there's rampant crime.     There's not a

5    lot of good places to go, not a lot of housing.     We can

6    take a billion dollars, hire more police officers, hire

7    better educators, better teachers, more affordable

8    housing.   We have to make it available for everyone on

9    this side so that people will want to come to this side,

10   and it's a safe place to live, a comfortable place to

11   live.

12              We have to also have a zero-tolerance law, where

13   the HPD says, for example, If you're caught speeding,

14   you're riding the bus; If you're caught without no-fault,

15   you're riding the bus.    Anybody who breaks the law more

16   than three times has their license revoked.     Because the

17   bottom line is driving is not a right; driving is a

18   privilege.   Then you can increase ridership.    And we all

19   know how bad it is right now.      The courts are so jammed

20   with traffic problems.

21              Delivery trucks:    Deliveries should be made

22   between 10:00 P.M. and 5:00 A.M.     There's no reason for

23   them to be delivering during prime-time hours.     They

24   don't need to be.   Because right now there are a lot of

25   supermarkets, restaurants, supplies are being made during


                 Ralph Rosenberg Court Reporters, Inc.
             Ofc: (808) 524-2090     Fax: (808) 524-2596



                           Page A-258
                                                                  9

1    those hours, thus lessening the flow of traffic on the

2    road.   Of course, I know, yes, there are some deliveries

3    that have to be made during the regular hours of the day.

4    But if we make the majority of them take those hours, we

5    take them off the road, as well.

6               I guess my biggest thing is, if this thing is

7    going to take $5 billion to build -- and that's not

8    including the cost of maintenance -- we could take 3 of

9    that 5 billion.   You know how many police officers we

10   could put out there?     You know how much money we can pay

11   to education?    How much could be made for affordable

12   housing?   And on the infrastructure to do it, as well.

13   It's not going to take $3 billion to do that.

14              It's a hard pill to swallow.   Nobody's going to

15   want to do it.    But if you offer the general public tax

16   incentives to buy an electric car, tax incentives to move

17   to the west side, move the State -- and we all know it's

18   going to work, because when there's a holiday, there's no

19   traffic on the road.     So, you can't tell me it's not

20   going to work.    It's going to work.   Because if we move

21   half of that population out to this side which is going

22   to that side, you don't have to build this big, ugly

23   eyesore that's on the road 24 hours a day, 7 days a week,

24   where we're looking at this monument.     That's going to

25   look horrible.    Tourists don't want to see that.   I


                 Ralph Rosenberg Court Reporters, Inc.
             Ofc: (808) 524-2090     Fax: (808) 524-2596


                            Page A-259
                                                             10

1   understand the need for us to get from place to place.

2   But with the solutions I provided -- electric cars; the

3   dedicated lane for the bus line; moving delivery trucks

4   to certain times; a Honolulu Highway Patrol that's always

5   on the road, making sure things are running smoothly --

6   I'm sure in ten years plus we'd have no problems.




                        Page A-260
                                     Web Site Comment
                                   www.honolulutransit.org


                                                                                        4/14/2007


FROM:
Maedene Lum
1310 Heulu St. 301
Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96822

COMMENT:
Attended the presentation at McKinley High School. The expense of the project is enormous!
Our population numbers do not support the usage. Ridership will not provide revenue to even
maintain the project on an annual basis. Taxpayers will be required to subsidize the project to
eternity. This system of transportation will bankrupt the city and state!!! We should expand our
present bus system--it is more flexible in that services can be reduced/discontinued on routes
where ridership is small. What needs to be done at present to increase ridership is advertising and
promotion. As an incentive, if a person buys an annual pass, he/she gets one month free!
Businesses can provide free gifts to employees who buy bus passes.




                                             Page A-261
                                      Web Site Comment
                                    www.honolulutransit.org


                                                                                         4/13/2007


FROM:
Lawson Teshima
PHT, Inc.
650 Iwilei Road 415
Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96817
lawson@kobay.com, 524-5040x220

COMMENT:
Before a fixed guideway (rail or bus project) is started, cheaper alternatives should be explored
that would reduce congestion. One feasible alternative that will cost very little and perhaps
increase TheBus ridership is to require that all students (including university, college and trade)
be bused to school. No parking should be provided and student passes for use on TheBus should
be given in case the student is not on a school bus route.




                                             Page A-262
                                       Web Site Comment
                                     www.honolulutransit.org


                                                                                           4/13/2007


FROM:
Dane Gonsalves
1279 S King St 3
Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96814
alawaiblowfish@yahoo.com

COMMENT:
I feel that building the initial line to salt lake is a waste of time and taxpayers money. I hope the
FTA agrees. The entire plan was great the way Mufi's Team originally concieved it.
Unfortunatly, Romy Chacola's special interests has other plans and want to turn this project into
a joke. Why not shuttle people to the airport from salt lake? Its less than a mile away! Politicial
Agendas are polluting this project and its not very cool, considering that we have to pay for it. I
say: NO AIRPORT, NO WAY




                                              Page A-263
                                     Web Site Comment
                                   www.honolulutransit.org


                                                                                        4/13/2007


FROM:
Amy Kimura
Hawai‘i 96822
kimura968@yahoo.com,

COMMENT:
Subject: Comments on EIS Scoping on Purpose and Need, Alternatives to be Considered, and
Impacts

1) For the record I want to state that I believe the Alternatives Analysis was inadequate in
evaluating the three non-Guideway alternatives, especially regarding Express Buses under the
No-Build, TSM, and Express-Buses-operating-in-Managed-Lanes alternatives.

2) The Alternatives to be Considered should include buses (I don’t know if this would be
considered “modes”) on the Fixed Guideway. In December the City Council was careful in not
specifying that rail be the only mode considered for the Fixed Guideway. At the December 2006
City Council hearing a much traveled tour guide who uses rail on his tours, Dennis Callan,
testified that buses exist with a capacity of 300 (three hundred) passengers! I had never heard of
or seen such high-capacity buses although I ride public transit wherever I’ve lived or traveled in
the USA, Canada, and Europe. The EIS should thoroughly evaluate such buses as well as other
buses for use on the Fixed Guideway, since buses can eliminate one of the major obstacles to
using rail, namely the inconvenience and time involved in transferring from feeder bus to rail.

3) Technologies to be considered should include: a) locations where they are in use (city,
state/country), b) numbers of stations and average distances between stations, c) number of years
at each location they have been used successfully, including (1) numbers of times and (2) lengths
of time out of service, (3) costs of maintenance, repairs, and replacement, (4) number of
manufacturers of replacement parts and number of years they have been in business, (5) safety
records, and (6) security. If they are unmanned, what social impacts would this have on
passenger security? That is, could thugs, robbers, and the like begin roaming the cars,
intimidating and frightening passengers? Would the homeless find them a comfortable, cool, air-
conditioned place to nap, driving away passengers with their body odor or scaring them with
their incoherent rantings?

4) How will the Minimum Operating Segment reduce rush hour traffic congestion, probably the
major reason Leewardites support it, when UH Manoa is not included? Commuters always
remark on how little congestion there is when UHM is not in session. Projected ridership should
reflect this drop in expected riders. Moreover, employees and customers of Ala Moana Shopping


                                             Page A-264
Center, the eastern terminus of the MOS, do not contribute to the rush hour congestion, as most
of the stores there open at 9:00 a.m. or later, and close well after the evening rush hour.

5) How much less can the Salt Lake alignment reduce rush hour traffic congestion than the
Airport alignment when Pearl Harbor and Hickam, two major employment centers, are excluded
from the Salt Lake alignment? Incidentally, what are the employee figures from the areas around
the Airport during rush hours? (Testimony at the 12/06 hearing indicated that Airport employees
do not contribute large numbers to the rush hour congestion because of their hours.)

6) What happens to the alignment if Aloha Stadium relocates? There have been articles about
this possibility. Will the City and State keep us apprised during the decision-making process?

7) Projected fares should be realistic. If Vancouver charges $99 Canadian (about $83 US) for
monthly adult passes good for rail and buses, is it realistic to claim a combined rail-bus monthly
pass in Honolulu would cost the equivalent of the current adult bus pass of $40/month (in 2007
dollars)? If fares need to be higher to pay for the fixed guideway, how would this affect low- and
moderate-income riders who have no alternatives? Would this necessitate an increase in the
senior bus pass (currently the nation’s best bargain at $30/year for free rides 24/7)? Would
middle-income riders switch to driving, thereby reducing fare revenue and adding to rush hour
congestion?

Thank you, and I look forward to your addressing the concerns raised here.
Aloha, Amy Y. Kimura




                                            Page A-265
                                    Web Site Comment
                                  www.honolulutransit.org


                                                                                      4/12/2007


FROM:
Russell Honma
International Transportation Consultants
P.O. Box 1201
Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96807
russellhonma@yahoo.com, (808) 265-5261

COMMENT:
I would like to state the following comments and recommendation on the Honolulu Rapid
Transit Project:

1) The interphasing of the Salt Lake Blvd. transit alignment and the Honolulu Airport (near Kehi
Lagoon Blvd). There should be a proposed train station to interphase and intergrade with the
Airport People Mover System. Currently the State Department of Transportation, Airports
Division is proposing a project for the Airport People Mover System. This way it will accomdate
the Honolulu Airport area.

2) When will be the RFP for procument be issued. Can we issue the RFP at the same time as the
Final EIS is being inputed. Remember the 1990 project of the Honolulu Rapid Transit
Development Project. We had both the RFP issued when we where completing the Final EIS.
This way you can start issuing the RFP sometime this summer July - August of 2007. We will
not have to wait until 2009/mid., until Final EIS completed.

3) How would the Privitization with the Government (City & State) and the Private Sector be
recognized for the development thru the Transit Oriented Development along the transit
alignment. Do we need to include it on the RFP Bid and specify those development and what,
how those merit be weighted during the evaluation of the RFP Bid.

Please respond to those above questions and if you have any question please E-mail me or call
me at 265-5261.

Sincerely yours, Russell Honma International Transportation Consultant State DOT (Retiree)




                                           Page A-266
                                      Web Site Comment
                                    www.honolulutransit.org


                                                                                           4/12/2007


FROM:
Ron Mobley
98-238 Paleo Way
Aiea, Hawai‘i 96701
ronmobley@hawaii.rr.com, 487-8703

COMMENT:
First, let me say that I cannot understand how a project can be approved when much of the
required information is missing.

For example, I have repeatedly asked if queuing theory has been applied, and the answer is no.

Second, I ask who will be new riders to the system. Again, I get not answers. Let me respond to
the second item first. It appears that the question of ridership is always aimed at those riding the
bus. Yet, the purpose is to reduce street traffic. Why then are you not focusing on drivers? If no
one switches modes nothing is being accompliched, except overexpinditure of money. The
second issue is a measurement of the ridership, drop off points, and bus connections for the drop
off points to the riders final destination. The facility size at various mass transit depots needs to
be based on rider information. If too many people arrive at improperly sized facilities chaos
occurs. Add to this the appropriate bus connections to rapidly remove passengers from the
depots. I see nothing in the plans that address these concerns.

Further, the times for travel do not seem to count depot wait times and further distribution to the
riders destination. This means the figures are showing incorrect relationships between the
various alternatives.

Finally, all costs should also be shown for the consumer, not just governmental expenses. For
example, parking at the appropriate depot, riding both el and bus.

Average wait time should also be openly stated.




                                              Page A-267
                                      Web Site Comment
                                    www.honolulutransit.org


                                                                                         4/10/2007


FROM:
Lennard Pepper
1352 Olino St.
Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96818
Pepper002@hawaii.rr.com, 422-1180

COMMENT:
The initial phases of the mass transit discussion appropriately focused on routing and financing.
Now, I believe, it is time to look at some of the benefits of mass transit for our citizens, which
may be summarized as social benefits or quality of life benefits. For example, I have gotten
reaction to my testimony that one of the good things about mass transit is that it will get some of
the drunks home safely from the bars. I indicated that the life to be saved might be mine or a
council member. This was not intended as a joke. This sort of social benefit needs to be
considered as we move forward. That particular example will probably require running the
system until two in the morning rather than midnight as currently planned.

Obvious benefits include getting people to and from shopping, health care, and social events.
The benefits will be more substantial for the elderly and the disabled, and projections indicate
that our communities will be aging long before 2030. Transportation to and from educational and
training opportunities is another social benefit that can be expected from the planned mass transit
system. Clearly, although UH as a destination is not part of the MOS, UH will be included in the
2030 system. Benefits will accrue not only to students and faculty but also to the Manoa
community which is negatively impacted by the current situation. However, UH is not the only
educational situation which will profit from the transit system. We will be needing more lifelong
education and traing opportunities as our working lives and our leisure and retirement present
new challenges and opportunities. Then too, as part of our attempts to improve education for the
young, we will probably create more special academies and magnet schools. This will mean that
more youngsters will travel away from their neighborhood schools for at least part of their
education.

Nobody has a crystal ball which can do a very good job of what things will look like by 2030 and
beyond, but we do need to make some best guesses as we move forward. For example, in my
community the housing stock is already aged, and changes will have to be made in density and
quality. Also , Aloha Stadium will almost certainly be replaced in a diffferent location opening a
large area to low and moderate housing. Since futurists have some techniques for prediction, it
will probably be wise to include them in the scoping process.

I hope these comments while not exhaustive will be helpful. I will be available for further
discussion, and believe that the Neighborhood Board process may also be of use as we move
forward.

Lennard J. Pepper 1352 Olino St. Honolulu Hi, 96818 422-1189

                                             Page A-268
                                     Web Site Comment
                                   www.honolulutransit.org


                                                                                        4/10/2007


FROM:
Daniel H.C. Li
1129 Rycroft Street 201
Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96814

COMMENT:
For the proposed rapid transit to work effectively to relieve the current highway traffic jam, the
route must be extended from UH Manoa and Waikiki, all the way to Kapolei; and it must have a
feeder line to the airport. Otherwise, few riders will choose rail over driving on the already
congested surface roads.

Mahalo.




                                             Page A-269
                                      Web Site Comment
                                    www.honolulutransit.org


                                                                                         4/9/2007


FROM:
Marilyn Michaels
Hawai‘i 96815

COMMENT:
I am concerned about asthetics and hope the EIS takes a look at what the transit system will do to
the aina and viewplane. I'm particularly concerned about a rail system running down Nimitz near
Aloha Tower. That would be a real blight on the waterfront. The system needs to be directed
down roads where it'll be hidden by the buildings that already exist, such as down King Street.

The route ought to include UH Manoa, Waikiki, and the airport.

A good feeder bus system, with plenty of park and ride structures in the suburbs, must be a part
of the over all plan.

All options should still be considered.

The system needs to be high speed and convenient, plus priced-right, otherwise no one will use
it.




                                            Page A-270
                                        Web Site Comment
                                      www.honolulutransit.org


                                                                                          4/5/2007


FROM:
Sara VanDerWerff
545-C Keolu Drive
Kailua, Hawai‘i 96734
sarav@cbpacific.com

COMMENT:
I agree that rail transit is an excellent idea and I support it.

I feel that University of Hawaii should be included and perhaps the airport in the first phase. The
airport should be included only if people are allowed to take their check-in and hand luggage on
the train.

MOST IMPORTANT: we should NOT have buses going into the neighborhoods to pick up
people and transport them to the train station. A much better plan is to provide parking for
vehicles at the train stations. One major advantage of that would be to allow people to do
errands, pick up children from various locations, etc. Buses are not known for their "on time"
schedule and would just cause more congestion.

Thank you for your consideration. I have attended the one transit informational meeting held in
the Windward area and have followed the update information since that time.




                                                Page A-271
                                     Web Site Comment
                                   www.honolulutransit.org


                                                                                        4/5/2007


FROM:
Albert del Rio
1245 Maunakea St. 212
Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96817
albert.delrio@hawaiiantel.net, 808-526-3287

COMMENT:
Will a bus oriented system accomodate handivan, tour buses, emergency an enforcement
vehicles, and some freight uses? These uses could be enhanced if separtated from the rest of the
traffic.




                                            Page A-272
                                     Web Site Comment
                                   www.honolulutransit.org


                                                                                        4/4/2007


FROM:
Brent Kakesako
Harvard University Student
325 Kirkland Mail Center
Cambridge, MA 2138
bkakesako@gmail.com, 808-371-9145

COMMENT:
To whom it may concern, I am a resident of Manoa, a graduate of Iolani School in 2003, and I
am currently enrolled in an introductory Environmental Science and Public Poilcy course at
Harvard. Our final project requires us to find a policy issue related to the environment that we
are interested to study and writing up a final policy proposal. The proposed rail system has
intrigued me from its public introduction and I would like to make this the focus of my final
paper. However, in order to write something of substance I was wondering if were possible for
me to speak with some of the key decision makers to gain more information and perhaps a more
focused sense of direction.

thank you, brent




                                            Page A-273
                                      Web Site Comment
                                    www.honolulutransit.org


                                                                                           4/3/2007


FROM:
Harold Lyau
87-156 Hila St.
Waianae, Hawai‘i 96792
hal0954@aol.com, 808-696-4047

COMMENT:
I can only imagine what Oahu's vehicle traffic will be in the next 10-15 years in the future.......
H1, H2, a virtual PARKING LOT ! Build the mass transit rail system that will benefit West
Oahu as the second city population will expand Ten-Fold in that time frame. People will use the
Rail System because NO ONE WANTS TO SIT IN A VIRTUAL PARKING LOT...due to
massive gridlock.




                                             Page A-274
                                      Web Site Comment
                                    www.honolulutransit.org


                                                                                        3/30/2007


FROM:
Susan Miller
Pacific Altelier
737 Bishop Street 0
Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96813
orinsbyandco@yahoo.com, 808.533.3688x203

COMMENT:
Zoning of transit stations will be a vulnerable area in the Project's implementation.




                                             Page A-275
                                        Web Site Comment
                                      www.honolulutransit.org


                                                                                         3/31/2007


FROM:
RYAN STRINGFELLOW
24320 143RD AVE SE
SNOHOMISH, WA 98296
lokelanis@prodigy.net, 425-750-0259

COMMENT:
As a former resident and future resident when I return to spend my retirement years at home in
Hawaii, I am very excited to see progress being made towards an elevated mass transit system. I
am a graduate of MPI and the University of Hawaii at Manoa.

I am very concerned with the last minute route change through Salt Lake. I think that is a
mistake based primarily on political leverage. The route running past Pearl Harbor and the
Airport would serve many more passengers. From the airport passing downtown, passing near
Waikiki and ending up at the UH Manoa campus is clearly the best choice and would serve the
most riders.

I presently work for King County Metro Transit in Seattle. I have visited several cities with light
rail and can understand how important the choice of route can be towards the success of the
project. Build it where people don't want to go and people won't use it.

Please add me to your mailing list.

Thanks, Ryan




                                             Page A-276
                                       Web Site Comment
                                     www.honolulutransit.org


                                                                                            3/30/2007


FROM:
Kellen Kunichika
1317 Moelola Place
Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96819
killerkakashi@yahoo.com, (808)833-7183

COMMENT:
I feeel that the need for this rail most defiantely out ranks the need of beatification of the island
as of the reasoning behind the last failed rail atempt. If anything it help to keep the roads nicer
and with less pot holes. All in all the rail is a necesity for our econimy because it would lessen
the load put on the road.




                                               Page A-277
                                      Web Site Comment
                                    www.honolulutransit.org


                                                                                         3/29/2007


FROM:
Nancy Fleming
5496 Poola Str.
Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96821
flemingn001@hawaii.rr.com, 808-377-8515

COMMENT:
My family, friends, neighbors, coworkers and I really support the proposed ferry. Since the inter
island airfares have increased so much in the past few years, all of us are not traveling to the
neighbors island to visit family, friends and to vacation. The ferry would enable us to travel
reasonably, and take our cars (including sports things and camping things and even our pets). We
also think it would be good for visitors to rent one car and be able to travel around the islands on
the ferry. Thank you for your consideration. Please instate the ferry.




                                             Page A-278
                                      Web Site Comment
                                    www.honolulutransit.org


                                                                                         3/29/2007


FROM:
Justito Alcon
91-1175 Kaiopua St
Ewa Beach, Hawai‘i 96706
alconj@gmail.com, 808-689-4382

COMMENT:
I have the following comments for the public scoping meeting agenda on 3/28/2007 at Kapolei
Hale.

I believe that in the EIS, it should assess the existing site and conditions as a baseline and
evaluate the anticipated impacts to the flora, fauna, animal habitat, business impact, homeowner
and landowner affected by land acquisition for the project, historical, and social impact. It should
include indepth study on the affects to ecology, air, and water quality to ensure long-term
sustainable, minimal impact by the project.

The EIS should include the noise impact, energy usage, and maintenance requirements of the
technology chosen. Preliminary work has been done by the city based on the different available
technologies. They should now be analyzed and evaluated in-depth. The result should give the
best choice based on initial cost, maintenance cost, capacity, upgradeability, and operating life.

The EIS should include the best route that least impacts the environment while serving as many
people as possible.

The EIS should also address the asthetics of the project without sacrificing cost, effectiveness,
and capacity of the project. The termination points should cover main business areas, popular
destinations, and high density housing areas. It is to compare the different choices as a means to
weight the better choice.

The EIS should include an emphasis on the level of positive impact to commuting as a way to
further explain the technologies involved and impact to the environment.




                                             Page A-279
                                       Web Site Comment
                                     www.honolulutransit.org


                                                                                            3/29/2007


FROM:
Joseph Kam
3317 Mooheau Avenue
Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96816
jjkam2002@aol.com

COMMENT:
I believe that you need to futher your research into children's parents of today. Watching and
observing any presentations so far; It only covers comments on old people. People who most
definitely will be a part of the earth by the time it's done. Alot of the supporters of the current
plan won't even be a part of the administration long enough to see it through. Focus of City &
County of Honolulu administration is way of course as to the issues that affect us today.




                                              Page A-280
                                     Web Site Comment
                                   www.honolulutransit.org


                                                                                      3/29/2007


FROM:
Jamie Steinhauer
424 Walina St. 22
Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96815
jmaloha@hawaiiantel.net

COMMENT:
It seems to me the money would be better spent on the sewer treatment plant upgrade. The
people of Honolulu should not have to pay $300.00 a month. I think priorities are in the wrong
place and a lot of people will agree.




                                            Page A-281
                                     Web Site Comment
                                   www.honolulutransit.org


                                                                                        3/29/2007


FROM:
Hale Takazawa
1024 Mauna Place
Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96822
hale@pacificatelier.com, 533-3699x202

COMMENT:
scoping: density and zoning issues within a 1/2 mile radius of train stops should be addressed in
the EIS with input from professional and industry organizations in the local community. the
expertise from these groups should be tapped at each stage of the planning process to discover
best practices for altering the density and zoning requirements with transit oriented design and
the creation of walkable communities.

suggestions or recommendations of the EIS scope should investigate the formation of a non-
profit think tank funded by a combination of city, a new tranist authority, grants, and
professional and industry organizations to serve as the advisory source for implementing
planning systems to use best-practices for TOD and walkable communities.




                                            Page A-282
                                      Web Site Comment
                                    www.honolulutransit.org


                                                                                           3/29/2007


FROM:
Enrique Defiesta Jr.
91-1002 A Kanehoalani Street
Kapolei, Hawai‘i 96707
a05defi@hotmail.com

COMMENT:
On March 28, I attended the scope meeting at Kapolei Hale, and was very impressed by the
stations, and well knowledged staff. The staff answered all concerns and questions that I had at
the time.

At this point, I strongly urge the development to build mass transit, and encourage our
lawmakers, council members, and the people of Hawaii to push, and make this happen. We need
to follow the example of those states that have Mass Transit, and see how it can be applied and
structured into our State of Hawaii. We already have spent to much to examine it. Now, just
proceed on the next step. At all cost, we must not waste anymore time. The longer we delay this
project, the higher the cost will rise. In other words, Just build it, and they will come. I hope and
pray my testimony helps.




                                              Page A-283
                                      Web Site Comment
                                    www.honolulutransit.org


                                                                                          3/29/2007


FROM:
Hawai‘i 96706

COMMENT:
Having the rail going thru Salt Lake is bypassing 3 military bases and the airport, how is that
going to help with traffice on the West Side..NOT.

What ever happened to the widening of Fort Weaver, seem like that is no longer a priority. 45
min to drive 5 miles to the freeway is uncalled for, but nothing is ever done, just a bunch of talk.




                                             Page A-284
                                     Web Site Comment
                                   www.honolulutransit.org


                                                                                       3/29/2007


FROM:
Hawai‘i 96782

COMMENT:
How can the public be involved when it is not allowed to vote on this hugh mega expensive
project? All the input from Oahu citizens count as zero when the recipient (C&C) controls the
comments and can easily ignore what it doesn't want to hear (or deny or refute it as
ridiculous/perposterous/lies). Just why are the voters allowed to weigh in so we know officially
what the population thinks about spending this amount of money.




                                            Page A-285
                                      Web Site Comment
                                    www.honolulutransit.org


                                                                                       3/28/2007


FROM:
William Stohler
94-530 Lumiauau Street 0
Waipahu, Hawai‘i 96797
benthic@flex.com

COMMENT:
I am an avid supporter of mass transit (light rail or monorail).

I am fervently opposed to the current proposed alignment which excludes the Honolulu airport,
Waikiki and UH. Such exclusions will cripple the effectiveness of a system that could largely
resolve the island's traffic woes.

That said, I believe that population density and traffic studies should be the basis for route
selection. The expectation is that the areas of highest population densities have the highest
population of commuters. The selected alignment should serve these areas above all else. While
I'd certainly like my neighborhood to be included, the greatest benefit will be achieved by
serving the greatest number of users. Engineering, planning and science should be used to select
the route, and politics has no place in the process.

At a minimum, I believe the route should begin in Ewa and terminate in Hawaii Kai, with a spur
route along the H2 to Milani. Traffic studies should be conducted first, however, to confirm these
assumptions.




                                              Page A-286
                                     Web Site Comment
                                   www.honolulutransit.org


                                                                                       3/28/2007


FROM:
Michael Schwartz
Hawai‘i 96821
chingbaby@gmail.com

COMMENT:
I'm in Aina Hina, so this plan will not directly benefit me. However, Hawaii's future is dependent
on mass transit for environmentally sustainable economic growth. Please move forward as soon
as possible.

Future expansion of the system is also important.




                                            Page A-287
                                      Web Site Comment
                                    www.honolulutransit.org


                                                                     3/28/2007


FROM:
Luana Bass
POB 835
Kaneohe, Hawai‘i 96744
sxyslmb@yahoo.com, (808) 753-3636

COMMENT:
In strong support of having this option of travel available to us.




                                              Page A-288
                                       Web Site Comment
                                     www.honolulutransit.org


                                                               3/28/2007


FROM:
K. O'Neill
Hawai‘i 96821
koneill@hawaii.rr.com

COMMENT:
Is this a transportation project, or a public works project?




                                              Page A-289
                                     Web Site Comment
                                   www.honolulutransit.org


                                                                                        3/28/2007


FROM:
Donna Ching
2212-A Wilder Ave
Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96822
dlching@aol.com, 944-4070

COMMENT:
Rail will not relieve congestion or improve commuting woes.

The cost estimates are misleading given that construction escalation alone is 10%/year,
compounding. And what about the operating costs and annual deficit? Where are those numbers?

The route and type of rail being proposed will not serve enough people to generate ridership.

No one except those consultants and contractors who will personally profit thinks this project is a
good idea.

If we were serious about getting people out of their cars, reducing traffic and commute times, we
could do so tomorrow with changes to: gas prices/taxes, parking subsidies for civil servants,
operating hours of UH-Manoa, mandatory staggered shift hours for public employees, incentives
to businesses to relocate outside downtown Honolulu, tolls, radically expanded bus fleet, bus-
only streets and zones, high speed lanes, and a myriad of other steps.

The proposed rail system and route is a political and financial boondoggle which does not solve
the root problem of congestion.

PLEASE do not saddle taxpayers with this white elephant!!




                                             Page A-290
                                     Web Site Comment
                                   www.honolulutransit.org


                                                                                        3/28/2007


FROM:
Christian Seckinger
91-1023 Kaikahola St
Ewa Beach, Hawai‘i 33967
seckderr@aol.com, 808-232-4760

COMMENT:
I think this is a great plan and would especially help the Ewa Beach area. My concern would be
that the transit system falls short of part of its goals and does not include portions of Ewa Beach
close to and on the Beach. This area tax base may not be as high as other areas but the population
and future growth would benefit greatly. The access in this area should be direct access to the
train system.

Thank you.




                                             Page A-291
                                      Web Site Comment
                                    www.honolulutransit.org


                                                                                           3/27/2007


FROM:
Toni Baran
A #1 Hawaii Weddings
44-160 Kou Pl. #2 2
Kaneohe, Hawai‘i 96744
lovehawaii@hawaii.rr.com, 235-6966

COMMENT:
I am totally against the new rail system. I like the letter to the editor suggesting more school
buses will ease traffic at a much lower cost to the taxpayer.




                                              Page A-292
                                        Web Site Comment
                                      www.honolulutransit.org


                                                                           3/26/2007


FROM:
Michael Lilly
707 Richards St. 700
Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96813
Michael@nljlaw.com, 808-528-1100x19

COMMENT:
1. I oppose this complete waste of money.

2. If you are going to build it, it is ridiculous to bypass the airport!




                                                Page A-293
                                       Web Site Comment
                                     www.honolulutransit.org


                                                                                            3/26/2007


FROM:
Janice Akau
87-407 Manaiakalani Place
Waianae, Hawai‘i 96792
jakau2001@yahoo.com

COMMENT:
I am a regular rider on THEBUS. I would not ride the rail on a regular basis because the BUS
gets me to town on a good day in 45 to 50 minutes. Like today being a State Holiday and the
Zipper Lane closed, I got on the 93 Express in Nanakuli at 6:12am and got off my bus in town at
6:55am.

The only thing that is hindering the Zipper Lane now during a regular work day is that since you
allowed 2 riders to be in the car during peak travel time, 5:30am to 7am, the Zipper Lane does
not Zip along like it used to. Please change it to three or more riders during this peak time again,
so that we can get to work quickly like we used to. There is the HOV lane right outside of the
Zipper Lane to accommodate those cars with two or more people which is not being utilized now
or monitored.

Traffic is because there are too many people driving their cars that have only one person in the
car. The whole point of having the Zipper lane, riding the bus, and in the future Rail Transit and
a Ferry, is to get those people out of their cars (or to carpool) and into these different modes of
transportation to get to work.

If you do the transit, make it worth the price, have it start from Kapolei, getting people from Ewa
Beach Kapolei, and Makakilo area to get on from there.

The route should go to the Airport, downtown and to University of Manoa.

The buses do a good job now to get everyone around to the other areas.

When the University is out for vacation our traffic is very good. When school starts our traffic
gets bad. Doesn't this tell you that having rail going to UH is what will aleviate a lot of traffic?

That's just what I think. Aloha, Janice Akau Leeward Resident




                                              Page A-294
                                        Web Site Comment
                                      www.honolulutransit.org


                                                                                              3/24/2007


FROM:
Leslie Hokyo
55 S Kukui St 1002
Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96813
hokyo@hawaii.rr.com

COMMENT:
I have a comment on alignment that I hope will be considered. The east end of the transit line
should go no further than Ala Moana Center. There are two major reasons for this: 1. Shuttle
buses can fill the need for transit to UH and Waikiki. These buses would be in addition to the
buses that already run between the Center and those to locations. The shuttles can be timed to
coincide with the arrival of trains. A good example is the Marguerite Shuttle that runs between
the CalTrain station and Stanford University. When you jump of the train, the shuttle bus is there
to take you to either the Stanford campus or the huge Stanford Mall nearby. Building rail lines to
UH and Waikiki would mean permanent fixtures along the route, with accompanying O&M
costs and visual blight. Running shuttle buses is much more flexible, as bus schedules and
numbers of buses can easily be adjusted. 2. UH West Oahu will be built up during the same
timeframe as rail transit. That means that much of the college age population in Leeward and
Central Oahu will be attending classes in Kapolei. As time goes on, the vast majority of UH-
Manoa students will be from East Oahu, windward side, and urban Honolulu.

I am neither for nor against rail transit, but if we do proceed with it, let's do it correctly.

Thank you for listening, Leslie Hokyo




                                                Page A-295
                                      Web Site Comment
                                    www.honolulutransit.org


                                                                                          3/24/2007


FROM:
Hondo Mizutani
360 Kamanelo Pl.
Hilo, Hawai‘i 96720
hondo@hawaiiantel.net

COMMENT:
Please have the fixed transit route go through HNL airport! To not have the route go through the
airport is unfair to us OUTER ISLAND RESIDENTS who also conduct business on OAHU and
pay the additional transit tax. It is ridiculous that the local government would decide to build a
new mass transit system that bypasses the airport. This would be not only a huge disservice to
OUTER ISLAND RESIDENTS who own businesses on OAHU and pay the transit tax, but also
a disservice to the thousands of people who pass throught the airport daily. As a Big Island
resident who conducts business on Oahu and will pay the transit tax, if the route does not go
throught the airport, I will be forced to continue renting a car during my frequent trips to Oahu,
and I think most of us Outer Island Residents travelling to Oahu will continue renting a car if the
transit bypasses the airport. This decision may be the ultimate factor in whether or not the transit
project will succeed or fail in the future. It seems that common sense will point-out that the
government should consider every advantage to the ultimate success in this risky, controversial
and yet needed program.

With sincerety, Hondo Mizutani




                                             Page A-296
                                      Web Site Comment
                                    www.honolulutransit.org


                                                                                         3/18/2007


FROM:
Jim Kennedy
91-1012 Kaipalaoa St. 0
Ewa Beach, Hawai‘i 96706
indyjimk@hawaii.rr.com, 808-689-7963

COMMENT:
I realize that the actual form of vehicles (trains or other) to be used has not beem determined. But
every artist rendering or picture I see shows only two or three rail cars hooked together. I have
even seen single cars. That will not work!!! Successful rapid transit systems for huge popluation
centers require up to ten cars hooked together. Carrying about 100 people each, a ten car train
will carry 1,000 people. These even have to run about five minutes apart. That means in one hour
12,000 people will be moved. In two hours that works out to 24,000 people. That means getting
20000+ cars off the roadways. That would be great. I should know because I lived in the San
Francisco area for 14 years before retiring back here last year.

Where can I get information on the kinds of cars or trains that are being considered?

Thank you, Jim Kennedy Ewa Beach




                                             Page A-297
                                       Web Site Comment
                                     www.honolulutransit.org


                                                                                           3/18/2007


FROM:
G.P.K. Ah Yat
1065 Kawaiahao St. 1803
Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96814
hawaiiansoul88@gmail.com, 597-8921

COMMENT:
1) I don't like the idea of not servicing: Pearl Harbor, the airport or the Nimitz Hwy. I feel that
Salt Lake was a political move that will benefit Council member Cachola (possibly land and
financial reasons). If the route is going to Waikiki, then wouldn't it benefit those in the industry
most important to us, the visitors? Why can't it go to the Kahala area, so maybe it will help our
East side?

2) What will fuel the transit system? Gas, electric or what? With the cost of fuel rising, how will
we control the increase in operations cost in the future? If it's electric, what will happen in the
event of an island wide blackout? Or even just in the area of the route? What will be our backup
system in any event? If it's going to be managed like The Bus system, then IT WILL BE a losing
venture to invest even a cent into.

3) I don't think WE should jump into something so expensive that WE WILL REGRET later!!!

Mahalo.




                                              Page A-298
Page A-299
Page A-300
Page A-301
Page A-302
Page A-303
Page A-304
Page A-305
Page A-306
Page A-307
Page A-308
Page A-309
Page A-310
Page A-311
Page A-312
Page A-313
Page A-314
Page A-315
Page A-316
Page A-317
Page A-318
Page A-319
Page A-320
Page A-321
Page A-322
Page A-323
Page A-324
Page A-325
Page A-326
Page A-327
Page A-328
Page A-329

								
To top